Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Defendants deny the allegation of conspiracy to prosecute the plaintiffs and state that the allegations made in the F. I. R. are not false; that the same were not made without reasonable and probable cause; that the police were the real prosecutors and that the report was not lodged out of any malicious motives but with the object of vindicating their legal rights. According to them, defendant No. 1 purchased 0.44 1/2 acre on the southern side of plot No. 737 from the Common Manager of the Bhingarpur De-bottar estate with the permission of the District Judge on 9-8-56. Having come to know of this, plaintiff No. 11 obtained a document on behalf of the Brahmin Nijjog for a portion of the very same plot from some members of the Choudhury family who had no power of disposal but could not get possession of the same. Therefore, they wanted to forcibly dispossess defendant No. 1 and take possession of the land. On the date of occurrence, while defendant No. 1 was rearranging his tea stall, members of the Brahmin Nijjog including plaintiffs formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of forcibly dispossessing defendant No. 1 from the tea stall, entered into it and tried to demolish the wall separating the tea stall and the nijjog office. When defendant No. 1 protested, he was pushed aside and his furniture and articles thrown away.

20. The two essential points for determination are: (1) whether there was absence of reasonable and probable cause for making the aforesaid accusations against all or any of the plaintiffs and (2) whether it was malicious. It is not disputed that unless both these points are found in favour of the plaintiffs, the claim cannot be sustained.

21. Before dealing with the evidence relating to the incidents on the date of occurrence, it is relevant to refer to the background of the relationship which existed between defendant No. 1 on the one hand and members of the Brahmin Nijjog to which plaintiffs belong. The undisputed facts are that defendant No. 1 has got his tea stall on a portion of plot No. 737 near the Rathagada Chhak of Bhubaneswar Town, while the house used as the office of the Nijjog is situate on plot No. 738 adjacent to the tea stall. The northern wall of the Nijjog house serves as a southern protection wall of defendant No. 1's tea stall. According to defendant No. 1, he had purchased Rupee 0/15/6 pies interest in plot No. 737 from the common Manager of the Bhingapur De-bottar Estate in 1956. Besides 0.001 1/2 acre out of the same plot claimed to have been purchased on behalf of the Nijiog, plaintiffs also purported to have purchased interests of other Choudhuries in the said plot and wanted to dispossess defendant No. 1.