This family is the solitary Brahmin family living in that little village and against them the entire wrath of the Kisans and their fellow travellers, the Communists, seems to have broken because they were the landlords and secondly they belonged to a community which is the special target of attack in these parts.The evidence is clear that they were subjected to systematic intimidation of murder, looting and arson.In this task of attacking this family the Kisans and their fellow traveller Communist opponents were encouraged by the fact that some other leading Mirasdars were on inimical terms with this family apparently trying to curry favour with these violent people by posing as their sympathisers and friends.The net result of this was that this family of Jagannathachariar concerned like rats, was systematically bombarding the authorities, Police and the Magistracy, to take action against these trouble-makers.The evidence of D.W. 1 is :"At that time meetings under Section 144 Cr. P. C. were banned, under an order in K. C. No. 5 of 1950 by Sub-divisional Magistrate, Pattukottai.The order was promulgated.Ail the Sub Inspectors in the jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate including myself received copies of that prohibitory order & copies were said to have been sent to ail V.Ms.I sent constables to publish the order, and caused publication by heat of tom-tom in all the villages within my station limits.I sent the order to the village of Alagiyanayagipuram.I remember to have received the acknowledgment from the Nadar V. M. There is also an Ayyar V. M. At about 3 P.M. I went in a friend's car to Alagiyanayagipuram.When 1 reached there I saw about 100 or 150 persons crowded in a public street in front of the house of one Vaithilingam in that village.They were about to create disturbance shouting slogans.At the sight of the Police, many of them dispersed.The plaintiff and Vaithilingam and Peristhambi continued to stand there.In order to prevent further trouble and disturbance, I had to arrest them and take them to the Police station under Section 157, Cr.Ex. B-3 is my report.At the time of the arrests, Communist Kisan trouble was going on, on a large scale in Pattukottai, Mannargudi and Tirutturaipundi.The eldest of them the 1st defendant was bombarding the authorities Police Magistracy, State Government etc. to book these patent and potential mischief mongers.These agitators were known to intend to put on a special display to mar the Republic Day Celebrations.JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J.In 1950 the District of Tanjore and especially the area of the Sub-Divisional Magistracy of Pattukottai was the seat of continuous trouble between the landlords and the Kisans.This Kisan movement was being fully exploited by the Communists and their fellow travellers on the foot that every trouble was welcome for fomenting agitations against the Government and for promoting forces of disorder and violence.The net result was that the Government took stringent measures to restrain the activities of these Communists.Special Police officers were posted and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pattukottai, directed all the Taluk Magistrates of Pattukottai and Arantangi to promulgate prohibitory orders under Section 144, Cr. P.O. in all the villages under their jurisdiction and especially as the Communists were for instance trying to mar the celebrations of the Republic Day and threatening to commit acts of violence and disturb peace and tranquillity.It is evident from a perusal of the order that it was passed on the reports of the Police Officers P.Ws. 1 Sri V. S. Subramaniam and D.W. 1 Sri M. K. Panikkar.Sri V. S. Subramaniam was then acting as the Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruthuraipoondi and Sri M. K. Panikkar w,is then the Sub-Inspector of Police, Adirampatnam.It is established in the evidence that the Sub Divisional Magistrate's direction to all Taluk Magistrate to publish this order in all their villages in their taluks by heat of tom-tom was carried out.The respondent in this second appeal Sri Jagannathachariar is a Mirasdar of Pattukottai Taluk, owing lands in the village of Alagiyanayakipuram.The other members of his family are his brothers impleaded as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.P. C. I took them at about 8 P.M. or 9 P.M. It was too late that night at Pattukottai.So they were remanded the next day.Ex. 15-11 is one of the reports in connection with that incident which I sent.The endorsement on my report is made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pattukottai Sri C. S. Subbiah Pillai, forwarding that report to the District Superintendent of Police.Ex. B-12 contains the endorsements of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and District Superintendent of Police with regard to their arrests.I submitted a first information report and the case-diary of the case to the Deputy Superintendent of Police through the Inspector of Police ...... The Sub-divisional Magistrate returned the first information report.So I submitted a second report on the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police ..... under Section 188 I.P.C. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, verified my report and sent the file to the Sub-magistrate, Pattukottai, to take cognizance.The Deputy Superintendent of Police wanted to know the result of action taken.There was one Kisan Deputy Superintendent of Police at Tanjore, one Inspector at Pattukottai, three Sub-Inspectors at Tanjore, Pattukottai aria Tiruturaipundi and several C.I.D. personnel were posted for the Kisan trouble.Mirasdars were put to great difficulty.The action I took against plaintiff, I did only on order of my officer.Ex. B-8 is my report in reply to the Deputy Superintendent of Police's queries, Ex. B-7."The learned ' Stationary Sub Magistrate, Pattukottai, before whom the plaintiff Chinnamuthu Ambalam and two others Vaithilinga Tevar and Periathambi Ambalam were charged for an offence under Section 188 I. P. G. were acquitted after twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution of whom only three witnesses spoke in support of the complainant On the ground that "on the whole, the case seems to have been magnified out of small incidents on account of ill-feelings as already indicated.Unfortunately the Sub Inspector has too willingly lent a helping hand and over enthusiastically booked a case.The prosecution witnesses have not come out with a correct version....... The only other evidence is that of the Sub Inspector; it has been made clear how exaggerated his evidence is in regard to the occurrence."Thereupon in 1953 tbe plaintitf, one of the acquitted accused, filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for recovery of Rs. 100/- as damages for malicious prosecution.The defendants to the suit were Jagannatha-chariar and his two brothers.The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had made out his case and decreed the suit against the first defendant and dismissed defendants 2 and 3 out of the suit on the ground that there was no proof that defendants 2 and 3 beyond merely giving evidence in C. C. No. 450 of 1950 had done anything further and cannot be considered as prosecutors of the plaintiff.There was an appeal therefrom and the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the first defendant was the real prosecutor but that he (first defendant) did not act maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause and that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages.On a careful analysis of the evidence and after giving due weight to the fact the trial court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses, and seeing them in the box he came to the conclusion : "I accept the evidence of D.W. 1 that there was a meeting of the Communists on 11-2-50 and that plaintiff took part in such a meeting and that he was arrested by D.W. 1 at such a meeting" (page 24).Again "I hold D. 1 acted with malice but did rot act without reasonable and probable cause". "(Para 26)".He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.Hence this Second Appeal by the defeated plaintiff.

Cited provisions: Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code