1. This appeal is entirely concluded by the findings of the lower appellate Court. The findings are as clear as any Judge sitting in second appeals would desire.
2. The suit was brought on account of an alleged malicious prosecution.
3. The lower Court found that the plaintiff-respondents purchased some lands and got possession over the sir lands which belonged to their vendors, after obtaining mutation of names in their favour and that when they vent to till the lands the defendants resisted and caused hurt. It further found that, the appellant made a false report to the Police and took steps to bring about the conviction of the plaintiffs. It came to the conclusion that the charge brought by the defendant-appellant was utterly false and was therefore malicious.
4. It is urged that, the fact that the plaintiffs had been convicted by the Court of first instance of criminal jurisdiction, although they were acquitted by the Sessions Judge was a clear and conclusive evidence to show that the charge brought by the defendant was not a bona fide charge. In support of this argument the case of Jadubar Singh v. Sheo Saran Singh (1) has been cite. That case was decided, on the peculiar facts of it and it does not lay down that a suit for malicious prosecution is not maintainable where there is a conviction by the Court of first instance and an acquittal by the appellate Criminal Court. The evidence in the case was gone into by the lower appellate Court and this Court is bound by the findings already mentioned.
5. In my opinion there is nothing in this appeal. It is dismissed under Order 41, rule 11 of the CPC.
6. Appeal dismissed.