Skip to content


Kona Thimma Reddi Vs. Bathini Chenna Reddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1906)16MLJ18
AppellantKona Thimma Reddi
RespondentBathini Chenna Reddi and ors.
Cases ReferredBhoja Reddi v. Perumal Reddi I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - krishnan on behalf of the plaintiff called our attention to a number of decisions with reference to the law applicable to such a case, but it is unnecessary to consider them as the points to be established by the plaintiff in such a cage are now thoroughly well settled and will be found stated with the utmost clearness in a brarth v. i have no hesitation in holding that be has failed to do so......them as the points to be established by the plaintiff in such a cage are now thoroughly well settled and will be found stated with the utmost clearness in a brarth v. north eastern railway co. (1883) 11 q.b.d. 440 : l.r. 11 a.c. 247 affirmed by the house of lords in l.r. 11 a.c. 247. moreover the plaintiff was only acquitted in the appeal in the criminal case and the onus cast on him by the law is specially heavy for, as laid down in bhoja reddi v. perumal reddi i.l.r. (1902) 26 m. 506, the plaintiff will have to show that the original conviction proceeded on evidence known to the complainant to be false or due to the wilful suppression by him of material information. the question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden thus resting on him. i have no hesitation in.....
Judgment:

S. Subrahmania Aiyar, Offg. C.J.

1. This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge of Bellary dismissing the plaintiff's suit for damages against the first and second defendants and the late third defendant for maliciously prosecuting him on a charge of abetting the murder of the son of the first defendant. Mr. Krishnan on behalf of the plaintiff called our attention to a number of decisions with reference to the law applicable to such a case, but it is unnecessary to consider them as the points to be established by the plaintiff in such a cage are now thoroughly well settled and will be found stated with the utmost clearness in A brarth v. North Eastern Railway Co. (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 440 : L.R. 11 A.C. 247 affirmed by the House of Lords in L.R. 11 A.C. 247. Moreover the plaintiff was only acquitted in the appeal in the criminal case and the onus cast on him by the law is specially heavy for, as laid down in Bhoja Reddi v. Perumal Reddi I.L.R. (1902) 26 M. 506, the plaintiff will have to show that the original conviction proceeded on evidence known to the complainant to be false or due to the wilful suppression by him of material information. The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden thus resting on him. I have no hesitation in holding that be has failed to do so.

2. Their Lordships then in separate judgments dealt with the evidence in the case and eventually found that the plaintiff appellant had not discharged the onus that lay on him: - Ed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //