Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 1082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
B.S. Patil, J.
B.M. Thimmaiah —Appellant
Vs.
T.M. Rukimini, Raja P. Thimmaiah @ P. Thimmaiah Since Dead and P. Sreenivasaiah Advocate —Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 1303/2005
Decided on : 10-09-2012
Advocate Appeared:
K.K. Vasanth, for the Appellant
K.S. Bheemaiah, for the Respondent
Headnote:TORTS - Defamation: [B.S. Patil, J ] Damages -Defamatory statement made in written statement filed in another suit filed by plaintiff’s husband, earlier working as Secretary of Society - Held, In order to find out whether a statement is defamatory or not, the first rule is that the whole of the statement complained of must be read and not only a part or parts of it and it is also necessary that in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, the Court must have regard to the fact as to what the words would convey to the ordinary meaning of the words which are the subject-matter of defamation are the same for the lawyer and also for the layman. When the language used is derogatory, the layman reads by making implications much more freely and the law of defamation is required to take note of the same. It is not necessary, in the instant case, to deal with the inference that a layman, having knowledge of the allegations would make, as the allegations are rather clear and direct. The test to be applied for determining the question whether a statement is defamatory is to be found the answer to the question ’would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society?". If the answer is yes, then it has to be held that the statement is defamatory.
In instant case, in written statement filed in suit instituted by plaintiff’s husband, earlier working as Secretary of society, allegations made by defendants which dealt with relationship of ’K’ with plaintiff characterizing it as questionable and doubtful, could not be regarded as allegations made in connection with their overall activities pertaining to the society and its affairs. If that was so, there was no necessity for the defendants to make special reference to relationship of ’K’ with plaintiff and describe it as ’questionable and doubtful’. If the allegations were only to confine to their role in the management of the affairs of the society, then the reference would have been to the relationship among all of them and not to the relationship between ’K’ and plaintiff. Such allegations, made in written statement unmistakably show that the defendants intended to attribute questionable and doubtful relationship between ’K’ and the plaintiff. Allegations referred directed against plaintiff were such that they would certainly give room to adverse opinion ore feelings from other persons as it was an attack upon the moral character of the plaintiff attributing to her a disgraceful conduct of having questionable relationship and doubtful activities with another person. The plaintiff being a lady, that too a Head Mistress of an institution was the wife of an advocate and both of them belonged to a respectable family and there was absolutely no occasion for the defendants to make such allegation.
It was not the case of the defendants that the allegations were true nor was there any material to show that there was any justification for making such allegation against the plaintiff. On the other hand, as per the stand of the defendants, they never intended to make such allegations imputing doubt regarding the moral character of the plaintiff. On the other hand, as per the stand of the defendants, they never intended to make such allegations imputing doubt regarding the moral character of the plaintiff. It is well established that malice or the evil intention of the author of the statement need not be established and it is no defence in a suit for defamation that the defendants did not intend to injure the plaintiff’s reputation, if in fact, it has been so injured. Even if the defendants bona fide believe in the truth of the words published by them, they will still be liable.
As regards publication of defamatory statement, there could not be any doubt that once written statement is filed and taken on record, document becomes part of the pleadings in a Court of law and the allegations made therein comes to the knowledge of at least the parties to the proceedings, which is sufficient publication. It is not necessary that the defamatory statement should be made known to the general public at large. Finding that there was due publication of defamatory statement which had brought down reputation of plaintiff and had injured her, is proper. Quantification of damages in a sum of Rs.60,000/- is also proper.
TORTS - Defamation: [B.S. Patil, J ] Suit for damages - Allegations by defendant dealing with relation of plaintiff with ’K’ characterizing it as questionable and doubtful - Held, Good character and reputation is as much important for man as it is for woman, It does count a lot in life of both men and women. Any attack on their character would certainly injure their feelings and both of them whether man or woman would be certainly entitled to maintain an action for defamation against the offender.
B.S. Patil, J. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2005 passed by the I Addl. City Civil 8b 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 realisation. 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.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them before the Trial Court.
3. 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 Higher 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.
4. It is this allegation made in the written statement that is the foundation for filing the suit seeking damages contending that the said statement was defamatory and resulted in disreputing the plaintiff and bringing down her esteem in the eyes of persons 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 pleas 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 her moral and social reputation of herself, her husband and her family members.
5. 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/-.
6. 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.
7. The defence taken by defendants 1 & 2 in their written statement is that they did not know how to read and write in English. T
