1. The finding of the learned Judge is that the defendant's complaint against the plaintiff was false and the facts found further show that the complaint was false to the knowledge of the complainant. When a complaint is false to the knowledge of the complainant, not only is want of reasonable and probable cause proved but malice also is proved. See Bhim Sen v. Sita Ram 24 A.P 363 : A.W.N. (1902) 92 and Abrath v. North Eastern Railway Co. (1866) 11 A.C. 247 : 55 L.J.Q.B. 457 : 55 L.T. 63 : 50 J.P. 659. We are unable to agree with the learned Judge that because the defendant had grounds for suspecting the plaintiff or her husband of having committed some wrongful act in connection with the defendant's daughter's jewels, the defendant could not be deemed to have been actuated by malice in himself bringing a case on allegations false to the defendant's knowledge.
2. On the evidence we hold that Rs. 1,000 (thousand rupees) is a fair sum to be awarded to the plaintiff as damages.
3. We set aside the Judge's decision and pass a decree in the plaintiff's favour for Rs. 1,000 (thousand rupees) and costs in both Courts.