In a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's statements caused actual harm to their reputation.

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:

(i) The wife of the plaintiff is the sister of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and daughter of 3rd defendant. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the grand-children and defendant No.3 is daughter of late Baratam China Satyanarayana, who is a successful businessman in Parvathipuram. The plaintiff was working in Telecom service at several places in different capacities and he is leading a respectable life in the society, even though he belongs to a business community.

(ii) While so, due to illegal contact with one Bompada Manikyamma, the said Satayanarayana neglected his legally wedded wife by name Ammayamma and her only daughter i.e., defendant No.3 herein. His assets depleted during the period 1970-1974. The said China Satyanarayana died in the year, 1982. The court litigation between said B.Manikyamma and wife of China Satyanarayana was ended after the settlement.

(iii) As there was no male assistance, the plaintiff looked after the entire court proceedings. The plaintiff started a business establishment under the name and style of ‘Satya Durga Agencies’ keeping the 1st defendant as incharge as he was working in Telecom Department at various places. Since 1976, the plaintiff and defendants were living under one roof.

(iv) Due to family disputes between the plaintiff and defendants, they entered into a settlement deed dated 04.03.2001 styled as Kutumba Pampakam Jabita(partition list) and it was executed on 10.03.2001.

(v) The defendants sent a notice dated 31.10.2003 duly signed by them attributing malafides and utter falsehood to the reputation of character of the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff was interrogated by Parvathipuram Town P.S. with regard to the suspicious death of wife of one Venkata Nageswara Rao and in order to get out of the said murder, the plaintiff spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is actually helped and financed by defendants.

(vi) This imputation by the defendants to the plaintiff integrity and reputation is venomous and purposefully aimed at harming the reputation of the plaintiff. The defendants have no scruples and do not stop at printing false accusations and are prepared to any extent to damage the reputation of the plaintiff and his family members. A case in Crime No.17 of 2004 on the file of Parvatipuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District, which swas registered basing on the complaint dated 01.03.2004 of the 1st defendant i.e. Baratam Subbarao against the wife of plaintiff and the plaintiff under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. was dismissed as not pressed since they decided to pursue their remedies in the civil Court.

(vii) since the defendants proclaimed in the village that the plaintiff will be punished with imprisonment, several people asked him about it and he has suffered mentally and physically. The damage caused by the defendants in both verbal and in writing was affected his reputation in the eye of public. The defendants are guilty of malicious propaganda and false accusations and the conduct of the defendants not only venomous but also cruel. Thus, the conduct of the defendants has caused injury to the reputation and feelings of the plaintiff family.

7. The defendants filed writ