JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal arises from a suit brought under the following circumstances: The mutwallis of a certain religious trust brought a suit against certain persons which was dismissed by the District Judge of Agra. An appeal was filed in the High Court and this appeal also was dismissed. The respondent obtained a decree for costs against one Farman who became an insolvent and they were unable to realise their decree. They have now filed this suit against a certain Abdul Hamid for damages, saying that they have been put to unnecessary expense owing to the action of this person in instigating the filing of the appeal in the High Court. The lower appellate Court has recorded a finding which in our opinion decides this case. He holds that one cannot say upon the evidence that Abdul Hamid had the appeal No. 203 of 1917 filed on behalf of Faiyaz Husain or Muhammad Ali or both without their authority.
2. The appeal purports to have been filed by all three plaintiff-appellants and even if this Abdul Hamid financed them that will not give a cause of action to the respondents to recover damages from him personally, because they have been unable to recover their costs from the appellants. It is not necessary to go at length into the question as to whether the English Law of Maintenance applies or does not apply in India. In our opinion this is a simple case in which we must hold that no damages accrued and no damages can be claimed. There is also a question of limitation which in our opinion Was decided correctly by the Court of first instance against the plaintiffs.
3. Cross-objection have been filed on the question of cost, but we are satisfied that the Judge exercised his discretion reasonably and we are not prepared to interfere. We therefore dismiss both the appeal and cross-objections with costs.