Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
V. SRINIVAS
Potnuru Srihari Rao, S/o. Late Venkanna – Appellant
Versus
Baratam Subba Rao, Adopted S/o. Late China Satyanarayana – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed against the decree and judgment dated 28.03.2006 in O.S.No.55 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvatipuram.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff herein is the plaintiff and the defendants herein are the defendants before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff instituted the suit for damages of Rs.8,00,000/- for the malicious conduct of the defendants.
5. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to narrate the pleadings pleaded by the parties.
6. As per the averments made in the plaint, the brief case of the plaintiff, is as follows:
In a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's statements caused actual harm to their reputation.
A claimant in defamation does not need to prove fame to seek damages; jurisdiction was properly assessed under CPC provisions.
In defamation cases, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the statements made by the defendant were false, malicious, and caused special damages, with the court emphasizing the distinction ....
The court established that defamatory statements made in quasi-judicial contexts may be protected by absolute privilege, but failure to provide adequate defenses can result in liability for defamatio....
Defendant's statements were found defamatory, published maliciously, and lacked justification, leading to damages awarded to Plaintiffs.
The court ruled that a plaintiff in a defamation case must prove the statements were defamatory, but the defendant's failure to present evidence can shift the burden back to the plaintiff to establis....
A plaintiff must substantiate claims of defamation with specific allegations and evidence of reputational harm, which cannot be based merely on general assertions or unverified statements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article