The main legal point established in the judgment is that defamatory statements imputing a questionable and doubtful relationship can constitute defamation, leading to liability for damages.

1. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2005 passed by the I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.3298/1988, decreeing the suit in part and directing defendants 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization.

2. Appellant herein was defendant No.2 before the Trial Court. Defendant No.1 having died during the course of trial, his legal representatives had been brought on record. They have not chosen to file any appeal. As regards defendant No.3, the suit has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming damages in a sum of Rs.60,000/- along with interest alleging that defendants 1 to 3 had in the written statement filed in O.S.No.5034/1987, used a defamatory statement imputing ‘questionable and doubtful relationship’ between the plaintiff on the one hand and one B. Krishnappa on the other. It is relevant to notice here that the said suit O.S.No.5034/1987 was filed by the plaintiff herein along with B.Krishnappa and five others seeking relief of declaration that the resolution passed by the defendants in the said suit including defendants 1 & 2 herein with regard to the management and affairs of Cauvery Ashram Higheer Primary and Nursery School situated at Padarayanapura, Bangalore, was illegal. In the said suit, defendants 1 & 2 herein had filed written statement through their counsel, wherein in paragraph 2 it was stated as under:

“……… It is pertinent to mention that Sri I.K.Belliyappa and B.Krishnappa are interested in rival institution and relationship of Sri B.Krishnappa with Smt. Rukmini is questionable and of doubtful activities.”

5. It is that allegation made in the written statement that is the foundation or filing the suit seeking damages contending that the said statement was defamatory and result in disreputing the plaintiff and bringing down her esteem in the eyes of person who have come to know about such allegations. It was further stated by the plaintiff that the above statement made in the written statement was per se defamatory and they were neither true nor were they necessary for the purpose of the please raised in the written statement and that they were made wantonly, recklessly and irresponsibly. The plaintiff further pleaded that the said allegations were suggestive to a layman’s reading in unmistakable inference and conclusion that there was intimacy between the plaintiff and the said B.Krishnappa and therefore, the imputation tantamounted to casting aspersion on the modesty and chastity of the plaintiff. She further contended that the said imputation hurt her feelings and lowered her moral and intellectual character apart from damaging here moral and social reputation of herself, her husband and her family members.

6. The plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dated 18.01.1988 to the defendants calling upon them to pay her a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages. Defendant No.1 received the notice. The notice addressed to Defendant No.2 was returned with postal shara that he was always absent during the delivery time. Thereafter the notice was sent to him under certificate of posting, but the same was not replied. For the purpose of the suit, the plaintiff restricted her claim for damages in a sum of Rs.60,000/-.

7. Defendants 1 & 2 filed common written statement, whereas defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement. As we are not concerned with defendant No.3, it is unnecessary to refer to the allegations made against defendant No.3 or the stand taken by him. The scope of this appeal is restricted to the liability fastened on defendant No.2.

8. The defence taken by defendants 1 & 2 in their written statement is that they did not know how to read and write in English. They had indeed instruct