is necessarily the property of Government. From the tenor of Section 26, Regulation XX. of 1810, it is quite clear that the Government itself does not claim the proprietary right in all the land situate in Cantonments. That Section admits that there may be a private property in lands or houses so situated; and positively prohibits Commanding Officers from dispossessing such proprietors, and their interference regarding the tenure or occupation of houses, shops, &c., is restricted to buildings "situated upon such ground as belongs to Government." The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

MOHUMED KHAN ZEMAN KHAN, (Plaintiff), Respondent.

THE particulars of this case are to be found in the printed Eng. lish decision of the Judge at the usual place.

From that it appears that Sewa Ram, a jât, and ex-sharer of mouzah Bijowlee, now belonging to the plaintiff Khan Zeman Khan, did on the 30th March 1829, present to the Magistrate a petition, containing the expressions which constitute the alleged libel. The petitioner was fined by the Deputy Magistrate for preferring a false complaint, and the order was reversed in appeal by the Magistrate, who thought it sufficient to take recognizances from certain parties to keep the peace. The plaintiff then brought this action for damages, and obtained a decree for Rs. 5,000 in the Court of the Principal Sudder Ameen, which amount was lowered in appeal to 500. The grounds of these decisions are to be found in the Judge's decree.

A special appeal was admitted to try, whether, under the circumstances, an action for damages would lie.

The majority of the Court are of opinion that the action will not lie. The principles upon which suits for defamation of character can be heard and determined in our Courts have

not yet been well defined; and without neglecting altogether the well digested system of the English law, the Court cannot be bound by it. They come therefore to the conclusion that cases of this kind must still be disposed of on general principles of equity, and with reference to the merits of each particular case.

The petition of Sewa Ram was very objectionable, and the petitioner undoubtedly subjected himself to the penalties prescribed for false complaints, and for contempts of Court. But after a careful perusal of the document itself, which is purposely not entered in this decision, lest the spirit should evaporate in the translation, the Court do not believe either that Khan Zeman Khan sustained any injury from the publication, or, that it was at all probable that he should. The Judge, in referring to the expressions in the libel more than once uses the term "murder," which conveys an impression very different from that conveyed by the petition itself. When Sewa Ram wrote murwana and mardalna in his petition, it may reasonably be doubted whether he intended to bring a deliberate charge of attempt to commit wilful murder. It is also to be borne in mind that great licence has been permitted in this respect by our Courts, a licence which should be restrained by the presiding Officer, but not by actions for damages: not yet at all events, and not until the people have been taught to expect such novel consequences of acts which they have long been allowed to commit with impunity. The relative position of the parties is another consideration which weighs with the Court in refusing damages to Khan Zeman Khan. He has purchased the defendant's lands; he is the talooquadar, and Sewa Ram the ex-zeminder still residing in his hereditary village. These facts may not appear to strangers to bear much upon the case, but they speak volumes to those who are acquainted with the present condition of the North Western Provinces. The Court feel convinced that if talooquadars were allowed to bring actions for damages on account of every intemperate expression uttered by dispossessed putteedars, the Courts would soon be filled with vexatious suits, and a fresh instrument of oppression would be placed in the hands of those who might choose to avail themselves of it. It may be quite true, as the Judge observes, that the plaintiff has not instituted this suit "for the purpose of making a profit of the defendant by recovering damages;" but since the plaintiff, as also observed by the Judge," has not suffered any actual injury from the libellous expressions," the Court, with reference to the state of society in these Provinces, are unable to conceive with what good object this suit can have been brought. The talooquadar has not suffered in any way, nor was it likely that he should have suffered, and whatever malice or impertinence there may have been in Sewa Ram's petition, would have been suitably punished by a fine. This

Hedger, Appellant,

versus

Maharanee Kumul Koomaree,

Respondent.

view of the case is moreover in conformity with a precedent* of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, 22d April 1841, when it was held that "defamatory and libellous expressions, when used by a party in the course of a judicial proceeding, are not actionable, though punishable as a contempt by the Court in which they are used." If this precedent be accepted by the Court, it is of itself a sufficient ground for dismissing the claim of the plaintiff.

On referring to the not very numerous precedents reported in the Law Books, the Court observe that whenever damages have been given, the libellous expressions were such as were likely to cause peculiar injury to the complaining party.

A Clergyman obtained a verdict when his morality was impugned. A Principal Sudder Ameen was considered entitled to recover damages when charged with corruption. A Post Master could not with impunity be accused of clandestinely opening letters. And, contrary to the practice of the English Courts, a female has recovered damages from those who calumniated her. The injury or probability of injury in these cases was very great; but there is nothing in the case before the Court to show that Khan Zuman Khan suffered, or might have suffered, peculiarly or excessively, from the libel of Sewa Ram.

The Court annul the decision of the Zillah Judge, and dismiss the claim of the plaintiff.

Present: A. W. BEGBIE, Judge.

The pre

I am inclined to take a different view of this case. cedent of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut of the 22d April 1841, quoted by my colleagues, is just exactly in point. The accusation brought by Sewa Ram against the plaintiff is something more than "defamatory and libellous expressions, when used by a party in the course of judicial proceedings.' The petition of Sewa Ram was nothing less than a "malicious prosecution," the remedy for which is a Civil suit for damages. This principle, viz. the right of a party falsely accused to sue for damages is expressly recognized in Clause 12, Section 12, Regulation XII. of 1803, in regard to native ministerial officers, and there seems no reason to suppose that it was the intention of the Legislature to allow to that class of persons a privilege not claimable by the community at large. By the English law, an action may lie for a false and malicious prosecution even though it miscarry. "An action on the case for a malicious prosecution may be founded upon an indictment whereon no acquittal can be had: as, if it be rejected by the grand jury, or be coram non judice, or be insuffi

eiently drawn. For it is not the danger of the plaintiff, but the scandal, vexation and expence upon which this action is founded." I cannot conceive a stronger ground for an action of defamation than is shown in the present case. The defendant deliberately presented a petition on stamp paper to the Magistrate, charging the plaintiff with employing persons to murder him, and he afterwards attested the petition on oath; although the Magistrate did not believe the accusation, it was not on this account the less libellous. The state of society in this country is such as not to place the charge beyond the bounds of probability. It is well known that influential men are but too apt to take the law into their own hands, and the removal, by the hands of hired assassins, of an obnoxious individual, at the bidding of a powerful enemy, is not an event calculated to excite astonishment in this country. Had the fine imposed by the Deputy Magistrate not been remitted, there would still have been a * See McPherson, Chapter VI. sufficient cause of action,* but as the offender has been allowed to escape unpunished by the Criminal authorities, it is the more necessary that he should be visited with the penalties of a Civil action. A few such examples would very soon put a stop to the too prevalent practice of false accusation. I find a precedent in the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut Select Report, 5th May 1845, volume VII. page 204, in which damages were awarded against a party for having falsely charged the plaintiff with dacoitee. I feel myself therefore compelled to record my dissent from my colleagues in this case, and to express my opinion that the petition presented by the defendant to the Magistrate was libellous, and calculated to harass and injure the plaintiff in public estimation, and that, as such, it was justly made the ground of a Civil action for damages.

Present:

CASE No. 242 OF 1850.

{

Special appeal from the decision of S. Fraser, Esq., Judge of Bareilly, dated 17th August 1850.

MUSSUMAT KURRUM BEEBEE, (Plaintiff), Appellant,

versus

HULEEM KHAN AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Respondents.

THIS case will be found among the printed decisions of the Zillah Courts for August 1850,

A special appeal was granted to try "whether the Judge has "not erred in nonsuiting the plaintiff, on the ground that it was "not competent to the Sudder Ameen to admit a supplemental "plaint, with reference to the precedent of this Court of 29th "June 1850, Gholam Qadir Khan and others, appellants."

The point at issue is disposed of by the precedent above quoted, which contains a lucid exposition of the Court's views on this subject. It was held by a full bench, for reasons recorded at length, that an Officer of the grade of Sudder Ameen is competent under the law to receive a supplemental plaint.

The decision of the Zillah Court is accordingly set aside, and the suit is remanded to the Judge's file for trial on its merits.

Present:

CASE No. 47 OF 1850.

The 2nd April, 1851.

A. W. BEGBIE,

H. LUSHINGTON, Judges,
H. W. DEANE, Offg. Judge.

Regular appeal from the decision of Moulvee Ahmud Hussun Khan, Principal Sudder Ameen of Mooradabad, dated 7th January 1850.

DOWLUT RAM AND SALIG RAM, (Plaintiffs), Appellants,

versus

CHOWDREE HUBEEB-OOLLAH, (Defendant), Respondent. THE claim of the plaintiffs is founded on a bond for Rs. 8,000, dated 22nd July 1845, the execution of which is not denied by the defendant. The objections raised to the demand were, that the whole of the accounts of the parties should be gone into before a decree could be given on a deed which referred only to a portion of them; that by suing on the bond only, the plaintiff would in reality obtain illegal interest; and that a certain sum of Rs. 658 ought, for reasons alleged, to be allowed to the defendant. The plaintiff consented to the deduction of the item of Rs. 658, concerning which it will be unnecessary to say any thing more.

This suit was made over for arbitration with the consent of the parties to a very respectable banker of Mooradabad, who, probably acquiescing in the defendant's opinion, that the whole of the account should be gone into if the object in view was a fair adjustment of all money dealings between the parties, did make a complete investigation, and gave into Court an award against the defendant for Rs. 20,070.