Smt .Ch. Padmasri vs A.G.V.V.N. Satyanarayana
2022 Latest Caselaw 7102 AP

           THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI


                        Appeal Suit No.69 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 96 CPC, aggrieved by the decree &

judgment, dated 22.12.2016, passed in O.S.No.134 of 2008 on the

file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku.

2. Heard Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants/

defendants and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for 1st

respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as

plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff is a permanent resident of Pydiparru. The

plaintiff and his family members own an extent of Ac.2.65 cents of

land in Pydiparru village under R.S.No.39/8. The 4 th defendant,

District Collector, West Godavai, issued a notification on

11.02.2007, in order to acquire the aforesaid land for the purpose

of house sites under Indiaramma Scheme. The plaintiff filed

W.P.No.3784 of 2007 before the High Court challenging the

notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,

and the High Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings.

The defendants 1 to 3 are the plaintiff's political rivals and

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

opponents and the husband of the 1st defendant is the mastermind

behind them. On 09.05.2007, the defendants 1 to 3, with a

malicious intention, conspired together to cause wrongful loss and

damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and submitted a report to

the 5th defendant, Tahasildar, Tanuku, while marking a copy to the

4th defendant, to the effect that the plaintiff is digging the land and

converting the same into a tank without prior approval of the

government. Immediately, on receipt of the said complaint, the 6 th

defendant inspected the property along with Revenue Inspector,

Tanuku, and created a record of seizure (panchanama) and insisted

that the police constable shall take custody of the vehicles present

over there. He addressed a letter to the SHO, Tanuku, copies of

which were also marked to the RDO, Kovvur, and the Inspector of

Police, Tanuku. On the basis of the said letter, the Station House

Officer, Tanuku Rural, registered a case in Crime No.87 of 2007

against the plaintiff and his family members under Sections 447 and

427 read with Section 34 IPC. The plaintiff suffered mental agony,

loss of reputation and prestige in his village. Thereafter, he

preferred criminal revision petition 3891 of 2007 before the High

Court which quashed the FIR and the proceedings thereof. Thus, it

is clear that defendants 1 to 3 have initiated malicious prosecution

against the plaintiff with a view to defame him and his family

members. The plaintiff is entitled to proceed against all the

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

defendants for the offence of defamation and is entitled to recover,

as general compensatory damages to a tune of Rs.10 lakkhs from

defendants 1 to 3 and 6 personally and from the government as the

Government is vicariously liable for the acts done by its employees.

Hence the suit is filed.

(b) Defendants 1 & 2 filed written statement denying the plaint

allegations and further contending that the 1st defendant is

Sarpanch and defendants 2 & 3 are members of Mandal Praja

Parishad, Pydiparru village. Their duty is to see that all the benefits

provided by the government reach the poor people in a proper way.

The government of Andhra Pradesh selected Pydiparru village as

'Indiramma Adarsha Gramam-2006.' The government, in order to

provide house sites and houses, issued notification to acquire

certain lands of the village. Aggrieved by the proposed acquisition

of their lands, certain land owners approached the High Court and

obtained interim orders. Defendants 1 to 3 received information

that the lands are being converted into tanks with an intention to

avoid acquisition by the government. Basing on the said

information, with a bona fide belief, defendants 1 to 3, being

representatives of the people and with good intention to protect the

interests of the poor people, reported the matter to the Tahasildar

to verify and take action. On that, the 5th defendant initiated action

against the plaintiff and others. Defendants 1 to 3 are not aware

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the plaintiff and they are not

parties to the said proceedings. The defendants 1 to 3 have no

intention to defame the reputation of the plaintiff or his family

members. The plaintiff has no cause of action to proceed against

the defendants 1 to 3. The suit is liable to be dismissed with

exemplary costs.

(c) The defendants 4 & 6 adopted the written statement filed by

the 5th defendant.

(d) The 5th defendant, Tahasildar, Tanuku, filed his written

statement contending as follows:

The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any compensation.

Defendants 4 to 6 are only government officials who are bound to

protect the interests of the government. They never had any

malicious intention either in inspecting the lands, the seizure of the

vehicles or in giving a police complaint and the said acts are done in

good faith in discharge of their official duties. The plaintiff got

issued notice and got filed the suit with false and frivolous

allegations. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed against the

defendants 4 to 6 with exemplary costs.

4. Basing the above pleadings, the following issues were framed

for trial:-

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as damages?

(iii) To what relief?

On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and exhibits

A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs 1 to 8

were examined and exhibit B1 was marked.

5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court partly decreed the suit

with costs against the defendants 1 to 3 only, directing them to pay

an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards damages

within three months from the date of decree failing which the

plaintiff is entitled to recover the same as per law. The suit against

the defendants 4 to 6 was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the decree & judgment of the trial Court, the

defendants preferred this appeal.

7. The appellants mainly urged in the grounds in the grounds of

appeal that the decree and judgment of the trial Court are contrary

to law, the trial Court failed to understand the scope and

significance of the suit based on malicious prosecution; the trial

Court failed to consider that the appellants are the Chairman and

members of the 'Indiramma Adarsha Grama Scheme' and they

issued complaint to respondents 2 to 4 on the complaint from

villagers against the plaintiff and that the said action does not

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

amount to malicious prosecution when they acted bona fidely; the

trial Court failed to see that the appellants are not parties to exhibit

A4 and PW3 is only a hearsay witness; the trial Court failed to see

that where an action was initiated by the government officials and

while dismissing the suit against them and those officials are

exonerated, no cause of action would survive against the

appellants.

8. It is mainly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants

that the trial Court, having held that the defendants 4 to 6 have

done their job as a part of their duty, failed to apply the same

principle to the appellants who are no other than the Sarpanch and

members of the Mandal Praja Parishad, took up the matter. It is

further contended that since it is their responsibility to see that

government schemes are implemented under a bona fide

impression that the plaintiff was digging the land to make it a tank

so as to prevent the process of land acquisition, the matter has

been brought to the notice of the Tahasildar, who in fact has taken

further action and if the said complaint of the appellants is

vexatious or malicious, the Tahasildar would not have proceeded

further, and thereby, it is clear that there is no malicious intention

on the part of the appellants. He further submitted that admittedly,

the plaintiff was digging the land and proclainers and tractors were

very much available there and these facts have been admitted in

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

their cross-examination. Therefore, he vehemently contended that

the trial court erred in decreeing the suit against the appellants.

9. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the

Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip

Kumar Ray1 to establish what constitutes 'malice' for the purpose

of prosecution thereon. He further placed reliance on the decision

in Narayana Mudali and another v. Peria Kalathi and

another2, wherein it is observed that the plaintiff must prove that

the institution of the proceedings was malicious and that it was

without reasonable and probable cause and that further it must, in

all cases, be proved that there was legal damage suffered as a

consequence of the institution of these proceedings.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/

plaintiff submitted that the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit

against the defendants 1 to 3 and that they have maliciously

initiated proceedings which lead to defame the reputation of the 1st

respondent in village and also putting him to hardship to approach

the Court to get the proceedings quashed.

11. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants that the plaintiff has not preferred any appeal against

(2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 568

Second Appeal No.1091 of 1934, dt.08.11.1938

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

dismissal of the suit against defendants 4 to 6 and the same would

entail to the benefit of the appellants.

12. Before proceedings further, it is beneficial to refer to the

observations of the Supreme Court at paragraph No.15, in the case

of West Bengal State Electricity Board (1st supra), which reads

as follows:

"15. Malice and Malicious Prosecution as stated in the Advance Law of Lexicon, 3rd Edition by P. Ramanatha Aiyar read as follows:

Malice - Unlawful intent

Ill Will; intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm, Express or actual malice is ill will or spite towards the plaintiff or any indirect or improper motive in the defendant's mind at the time of the publication which is his sole or dominant motive for publishing the words complained of. This must be distinguished from legal malice or malice in law which means publication without law full excuse and does not depend upon the defendant's state of mind.

(1) The intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act.

(2) Reckless disregard of the law or of a person's legal rights.

Ill will: wickedness of heart. This sense is most typical in non legal contexts.

Malice means in law wrongful intention. It includes any intent which the law deems wrongful, and which therefore serves as a ground of liability. Any act done with such an intent is, in the language of the law, malicious, and this legal usage has etymology in its favour. The Latin militia means badness, physical or moral - wickedness in disposition or in conduct - not specifically or exclusively ill-will or malevolence; hence the malice of English law, including all forms of evil purpose. design, intent, or motive. But intent is of two kinds, being either immediate or ulterior, the ulterior intent being commonly distinguished as the motive. The term malice is applied in law to both these forms of intent, and the result is a somewhat puzzling ambiguity which requires careful notice. When we say that an act is done maliciously, we mean one of the

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

two distinct things. We mean either that it is done intentionally, or that it is done with some wrongful motive.

Malice in the legal sense imports (I) the absence of all elements of justification, excuse or recognized mitigation, and (2) the presence of either (a) an actual intent to cause the particular harm which is produced or harm of the same general nature, or (b) the wanton and wilful doing of an act with awareness of a plain and strong likelihood that such harm may result.

The Model Penal Code does not use 'malice' because those who formulated the Code had a blind prejudice against the word. This is very regrettable because it represents a useful concept despite some unfortunate language employed at times in the effort to express it.

"Malice" in the legal acceptance of the word is not confined to personal spite against individuals but consists in a conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another. In its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.

"Malice", in its legal sense, does not necessarily signally ill- will towards a particular individual, but denotes that condition of mind which is manifested by the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse. Therefore, the law implies malice where one deliberately injures another in an unlawful manner.

Malice means an indirect wrong motive.

'Malice' in its legal sense means, malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause.

Malice, in ordinary common parlance, means ill-will against a person and in legal sense, a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or reason.

It is a question of motive, intention or state of mind and may be defined as any corrupt or wrong motive or personal spite or ill will.

'Malice' in common law or acceptance means ill-will against a person, but in legal sense it means a wrongful act alone intentionally without just cause or excuse.

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

It signifies an intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse or an action determined by an improper motive.

"MALICE", in common acceptation, means, ill will against a person; but in its legal sense, it means, a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse"

Malice in its common acceptation, is a term involving stint intent of the mind and heart, including the will; and has been said to mean a bad mind; ill-will against a person; a wicked or evil state of the mind towards another; an evil intent or wish or design to vex or annoy another; a wilful intent to do a wrongful act; a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person or as intent to do a wrongful act; a condition of the mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief.

"MALICE" means wickedness of purpose, or a spiteful or malevolent design against another; a purpose to injure another; a design of doing mischief, or any evil design or inclination to do a bad thing, or a reckless disregard to the rights of others, or absence or legal excuse, or any other motive than that of bringing a party to justice."

"The meaning of the term malice in English law, his been a question of much difficulty and controversy; and those who made through the many disquisitions on the subjects in text- books and judicial opinions are almost tempted to the conclusion that the meaning varies almost infinitely, and that the only sense which the term can safely be predicated not to have in any given legal context is that which it has in popular language, viz., spite or ill-will. It certainly has different meanings with respect to responsibility for civil wrongs and responsibility for crime; and even with respect to crime it has a different sense according as it is used with reference to murder, libel, or the capacity of an infant to commit crime, expressed by the rule militia supplest act item." (Ency. of the Laws of England). Ordinarily, the absence of reasonable and probable cause in instituting a proceeding which terminates in favour of the plaintiff, would give rise to the inference of malice.

MALICE has been said to mean any wrong or indirect motive but a prosecution is not malicious merely because it is inspired by anger. However, wrong- headed a prosecutor may be, if he honestly thinks that the accused has been guilty of a criminal offence he cannot be initiator of a malicious prosecution.

MALICE means the presence of some improper and wrongful motive - that is to say an intend to use the legal process in question

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

for some other than its legally appointed and appropriate purpose. It means an improper or indirect motive other than a desire to vindicate public justice or a private right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill-will; it may be due to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage.

MALICE in fact is male animus indicating that action against a party was actuated by spite or ill will against him or by indirect or improper motives.

Malice: hatred: aversion: antipathy: enmity: Repugnance: ill- will: rancour: malevolence: Malignity: malignancy. Hatred is a very general term. Hatred applies properly to persons. It seems not absolutely involuntary. It has its root in passion, and may be checked or stimulated and indulged. Aversion is strong dislike. Aversion is a habitual sentiment, and springs from the natural taste or temperament which repels its opposites, as an indolent man has an aversion to industry, or a humane one to cruelty.

Antipathy is used of causeless dislike, or at least one of which the cause cannot be defined. It is found upon supposition or instinctive belief, often utterly gratuitous. Enmity is the state of persona! opposition, whether accompanied by strong personal dislike or not; as "a bitter enemy." Repugnance is characteristically employed of acts or courses of action, measures, pursuits, and the like. Ill-will is a settled bias of the disposition. It is very indefinite, and may be of any degree or strength. Rancour is a deep seated and lasting feeling of ill-will. It preys upon the very mind of the subject of it. While enmity may be generous and open, rancour is malignant and private. Malice is that enmity which can abide its opportunity of injuring its object, and pervert the truth or the right, or go out of its way, or shape course of action, to compass its ends. "Malevolence commences with some idea or evil belonging to and connected with the object; and it settles into a permanent hatred of his person and of everything relative to him" - (Gogan) Malignity is cruel malevolence, or innate love of harm for the sake of doing it. It is malice the most energetic, inveterate, and sustained.

Malice in fact. "Malice in fact" means express malice.

MALICE IN FACT OR ACTUAL MALICE, relates to the actual state or condition of the mind of the person who did the act. Malice in fact is where the malice is not established by legal presumption or proof of certain facts, but is to be found from the evidence in the case.

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

Malice in fact implies a desire or intention to injure, while malice in law is not necessarily inconsistent with an honest purpose.

Malice in law. 'Malice in law" means implied malice.

"MALICE IN LAW" simply means a depraved inclination on the part of a person to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by his injurious acts.

Malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India 1978 : (1979)ILLJ25SC .

MALICIOUS. Done with malice or an evil design; wilful; indulging in malice, harboring ill-will, or enmity malevolent, malignant in heart; committed wantonly, wilfully, or without cause, or done not only wilfully and intentionally, but out of cruelty, hostility of revenge; done in wilful neglect of a known obligation.

"MALICIOUS" means with a fixed hate, or done with evil intention or motive; not the result of sudden passion.

Malicious abuse of civil proceedings. In general, a person may utilize any form of legal process without any liability, save liability to pay the costs of proceedings if unsuccessful. But an action lies for initiating civil proceedings. Such as action, presentation of a bankruptcy or winding up petition, an unfounded claim to property, not only unsuccessfully but maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause and resulting in damage to the plaintiff. (Walker)

Malicious abuse of legal process. A malicious abuse of legal process consists in the malicious misuse or misapplication of process to accomplish a purpose not warranted or commanded by order of Court - the malicious perversion of a regularly issued process, whereby an improper result is secured.

There is a distinction between a malicious use and a malicious abuse of legal process. An abuse is where the party employs it for some unlawful object - not the purpose which it is intended by the law to effect; in other words, a perversion of it.

Malicious abuse of process. Wilfully misapplying Court process to obtain object not intended by law. The wilful misuse or misapplication of process to accomplish a purpose not warranted or commanded by the writ. An action for malicious abuse of process

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

lies in the following cases, A malicious petition or proceeding to adjudicate a person an insolvent, to declare a person lunatic or to wind up a company, to make action against legal practitioner under the Legal Practitioners Act, maliciously procuring arrest or attachment in execution of a decree or before judgment, order or injunction or appointment of receiver, arrest of a ship, search of the plaintiff's premises, arrest of a person by police.

Malicious abuse of process of Court

Malicious act Bouvier defined a malicious act as "a wrongful act, intentionally done, without cause or excuse.

A malicious act is one committed in a state of mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief a wrongful act intentionally done, without legal justification or excuse.

'A malicious act is an act characterised by a preexisting or an accompanying malicious state of mind.

Malicious Prosecution - Malice. Malice means an improper or indirect motive other than a desire to vindicate public justice or a private right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill-will. It may be due to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage. The principles to be borne in mind in the case of actions for malicious prosecutions are these:-Malice is not merely the doing a wrongful act intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by mains animus, that is to say, by spite of ill- will or any indirect or improper motive. But if the defendant hod reasonable or probable cause of launching the criminal prosecution no amount of malice will make him liable for damages. Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on the mind of a discreet and reasonable man; 'malice' and 'want of reasonable and probable cause.' have reference to the state of the defendant's mind at the date of the initiation of criminal proceedings and the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove them.

OTHER DEFINITIONS OF "MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

A judicial proceeding instituted by one person against another, from wrongful or improper motive and without probable cause to sustain it.

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

A prosecution begun in malice, without probable cause to believe that it can succeed and which finally ends in failure.

A prosecution instituted wilfully and purposely, to gain some advantage to the prosecutor or thorough mere wantonness or carelessness, if it be at the same time wrong and unlawful within the knowledge of the actor, and without probable cause.

A prosecution on some charge of crime which is wilful, wanton, or reckless, or against the prosecutor's sense of duty and right, or for ends he knows or is bound to know are wrong and against the dictates of public policy.

The term "malicious prosecution" imports a causeless as well as an ill-intended prosecution.

"MALICIOUS PROSECUTION" is a prosecution on some charge of crime which is wilful, wanton, or reckless, or against the prosecutor's sense of duty and right, or for ends he knows or its bound to know are wrong and against the dictates of public policy.

In malicious prosecution there are two essential elements, namely, that no probable cause existed for instituting the prosecution or suit complained of, and that such prosecution or suit terminated in some way favorably to the defendant therein.

1. The institution of a criminal or civil proceeding for an improper purpose and without probable cause.

2. The cause of action resulting from the institution of such a proceeding. Once a wrongful prosecution has ended in the defendant's favor, lie or she may sue for tort damages - Also termed (in the context of civil proceedings) malicious use of process. (Black, 7th Edn., 1999)

The distinction between an action for malicious prosecution and an action for abuse of process is that a malicious prosecution consists in maliciously causing process to be issued, whereas an abuse of process is the employment of legal process for some purpose other than that which it was intended by the law to effect - the improper use of a regularly issued process. For instance, the initiation of vexatious civil proceedings known to be groundless is not abuse of process, but is governed by substantially the same rules as the malicious prosecution of criminal proceedings." 52 Am. Jur. 2d Malicious Prosecution Section 2, at 187 (1970).

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

The term 'malice,' as used in the expression "malicious prosecution" is not to be considered in the sense of spite or hatred against an individual, but of malus animus, and as denoting that the party is actuated by improper and indirect motives.

As a general rule of law, any person is entitled though not always bound to lay before a judicial officer information as to any criminal offence which he has reasonable and probable cause to believe has been committed, with a view to ensuring the arrest, trial, and punishment of the offender. This principle is thus stated in Lightbody's case, 1882, 9 Rettie, 934. "When it comes to the knowledge of anybody that a crime has been committed a duty is laid on that person as a citizen of the country to state to the authorities what he knows respecting the commission of the crime, and if he states, only what he knows and honestly believes he cannot be subjected to an action of damages merely because it turns out that the person as to whom he has given the information is after all not guilty of the crime. In such cases to establish liability the pursuer must show that the informant acted from malice, i.e., 'not in discharge of his public duty but from an illegitimate motive, and must also prove that the statements were made or the information given without any reasonable grounds of belief, or other information given without probable cause; and Lord SHAND added (p. 940): "He has not only a duty but a right when the cause affects his own property.

Most criminal prosecutions are conducted by private citizens in the name of the Crown. This exercise of civic rights constitutes what with reference to the la of libel is termed a privileged occasion: but if the right is abused, the person injured thereby is, in certain events, entitled to a remedy. (See H. Stephen, Malicious Prosecution, 1888; Builen and Leake, Prec. P1., Clerk and Lindsell. Torts, Pollock, Torts; LQR. April 1898; Vin., Abr., tit. "Action on the Case" Ency. of the Laws of England.)

"MALICIOUS PROSECUTION" means that the proceedings which are complained of were initiated from a malicious spirit, i.e., from an indirect and improper motive, and not in furtherance of justice. [10 CWN 253 (FB)]

The performance of a duty imposed by law, such as the institution of a prosecution as a necessary condition precedent to a civil action, does not constitute "malice". (Abbott v. Refuge Assurance Co. (1962) 1 QB 432.

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

"Malicious prosecution" thus differs from wrongful arrest and detention, in that the onus of proving that the prosecutor did not act honestly or reasonably, lies on the person prosecuted." (per DIPLOCK U in Dailison v. Caffery (1965) 1 QB 348. (Stroud, 6th Edn., 2000).

13. 'Malice' is a mental element which can only be inferred from

the acts and can be determined from the circumstances in

conjunction with the actions. The undisputed facts are that the land

in question was intended to be acquired for the purpose of

Government scheme, but possession was not yet taken by the

Government and that the plaintiff was digging the land with the help

of proclainers and keeping the tractors for carrying the earth dug.

14. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that he was digging the

land to manure it as it is a practice of agriculturists in the village to

remove the upper layer of the earth which has become unfertile due

to use of pesticides etc., and restore the fertility by placing manure

etc., over there and in the same process, he was digging the land

but not for the purpose of making it as a tank to avoid acquisition.

15. On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellants that

since he was already digging the earth with heavy proclainers and

using the tractors for removal of the earth, the only inference that

can be ordinarily drawn is that he was converting the nature of the

land in view of the proposed acquisition of the lands and that as a

part of their duty, they reported the matter to the Tahasildar who

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

took the action to the further stage and what all they have done is

with bona fide intention to discharge their role as Sarpanch and

members of the Mandal Praja Parishad to see that the scheme

proposed by the government are properly implemented.

16. Since it is a normal practice for agriculturists to make the

upper layer of the earth fertile by adding manure periodically, the

Court can take judicial notice of the fact that agriculturists do the

same to make the land fertile. But, at the same time, to convert a

land into a tank, there is also necessity to dig the earth, remove the

same from there to another place. Since both activities involved

removal of earth, there is commonality in both activities. The

process of manuring the land changes from place to place and time

to time, as many technological and mechanical changes are brought

in the field of agriculture. The plaintiff has not produced evidence

that he has been similarly doing in the past or that it was the time

to do so or that during the same period, other agriculturists were

indulging in similar activity. There is no evidence that he kept the

manure right there or that he had already prepared to shift the

manure to the land. Therefore, a prudent person would understand

the fact that the plaintiff was digging the land and was prepared to

remove the earth by using heavy vehicles, that he was changing the

nature of the land, more particularly in view of the proposed land

acquisition, in the absence of any other material available there to

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

indicate that he was manuring the land. Like any fact as is said to

be proved by employing the test of understanding of a prudent

man, in the present case, any person could genuinely understand

that preparations were on for converting the nature of the land.

17. There is no evidence to indicate that the appellants have

intended to lodge complaint with a view to take criminal action

against him to malign his reputation. It can only be inferred from

their actions and the report that they wanted to prevent conversion

of the land so as to prevent attempt to cause obstruction for

acquisition of land for the purpose of the government scheme

proposed. Merely because they belong to rival political parties or

that the government officials have taken action on the complaint

after being primarily satisfied with the complaint, no 'malice' can be

attributed. As rightly submitted, the trial Court, having found the

government officials have taken up the matter further as a part of

their duty, it has gone wrong in observing that there was lapse on

the part of the appellants. If at all, there is no genuineness in the

complaint, nothing prevented the government officials to drop the

proceedings then and there and not taking the matter forward. The

fact that they have taken up the matter further itself indicates that

they found prima facie justification in the complaint. When such

steps are taken by the appellants, it is erroneous to indicate malice

in the action of the appellants. As such, the suit is liable to be

BSB, J A.S.No.69 of 2017

dismissed and the impugned decree and judgment are liable to be

set aside.

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment

and decree, dated 22.12.2016, passed in O.S.No.134 of 2008 and

the suit is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 16th September, 2022 RAR