T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) THE defendants challenge the grant of decree of damages of rs. 1,000-00 granted by the Courts below on rendering on concurrent finding of facts.

( 2 ) THE damages came to be claimed by the plaintiff on the ground that a notice of partition issued on 20. 12. 1985, the defendants replied calling the plaintiff is a cheat and he has been involved in many cheating cases and suffered imprisonment and he is having bad character addicted to bad habits and involved in antisocial activities. The above statements have created mental agony to the plaintiff and his reputation is badly affected in the society and the reply notice has been given due publication and the allegations made therein are all false and are made with an intention to defame the plaintiff in the eye of public and thus they had badly affected his reputation and status in the society and therefore the plaintiff is claiming damages of Rs. 1,000 from the defendants.

( 3 ) DENYING the allegation made and amount mentioned therein and the notice was not intended damage the reputation of the plaintiff and to undermine his prestige and that there is no publication as alleged by the plaintiff and it is strictly confidential, the same will not amount to damages for defamation.

( 4 ) THE trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and placed the burden on the defendant to justify the remarks made by him. It was specifically urged by the plaintiff's Counsel that drafting of the reply notice was prepared at the instruction of the defendant's advocate office in the presence of some other persons coupled with, the fact that the written portion was got typed elsewhere, certainly amounts to publication, besides the defendants have also proved that the said allegation touching the character of the plaintiff is true and added fuel to fire. In the cross examination the defendant No. 1 deposed that the plaintiff had illicit relationship with the wife of one dyavanna and he speaks as if he is an eye witness to the said incident. Considering these aspects, the trial Court granted the decree of rs. 1,000/- and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court.

( 5 ) IT is now contended before me that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages and the courts below have not justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for damages on the basis of suit for action of defamation, Even-though the Respondent/plaintiff has failed to establish the defamation in the eye of law. The presumption that the reply notice as well as the statement was construed as defamatory is reflected in the issues framed and even otherwise such issues must have been proved by the plaintiff but not by the defendants

( 6 ) THE facts in this case are admitted. So naturally it was the defendant to justify the allegations made by him and on his failure to justify the same, the decree for damages is a must: A person who makes allegation which was prima facie defamatory and there can be from the civil or criminal identity only on the certain circumstances such as :1. That the defendant never published any of the words complained of. 2. That the words complained of did not refer to the plaintiff. 3. That the words complained of did not bear any meaning defamatory of the plaintiff. 4. That the words complained of were true in substance and fact. 5. That the words complained of were published on an occasion of absolute privilege;6. That the words complained of were published on an occasion of qualified privilege. 7. That the words complained of were fair comment on a matter iof public interest. 8. That the words complained of were published innocently and an offer of amendment was made, known as "unintentional defamation". 9. That the words complained of were published with. the consent and by the authority of the plaintiff. 10. Accord and satisfaction. 11. Release. 12. Lapse of time. 13. Res-judicate.

( 7 ) NONE of those exceptions are claimed by the defendant in this case nor there is a denial of p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document