Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J.
Nettoor Sreedharan S/o. Kunhambu - Appellant
Vs.
P.V. Chandran - Respondent
RSA NO. 248 OF 2025
Decided On : 22-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.SURENDRAN
To succeed in a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove that the publication was false and made with malicious intent; slight factual inaccuracies do not establish malice.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - Defamation - Appeal against dismissal of suit for damages due to an alleged defamatory news article - Plaintiff contended publication was false and intentional - Defendants claimed bona fide publication based on registered crime - Burden of proof lies with plaintiff to establish malicious intent - Trial court found publication did not amount to defamation - Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld. (Paras 2, 4, 8)
(B) Defamation - Essential requirements for damages - Plaintiff must demonstrate that publication was made with malice and was untrue - Slight errors in facts do not equate to malice or defamatory intent - Articles can be justified if based on reliable sources. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The suit was filed for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- due to a news article published about alleged misconduct regarding 112 acres of land, where the plaintiff was accused in a registered crime.
Findings of Court:
Both lower courts concluded that the publication did not constitute defamation, affirming that no malice was proven.
Issues: Whether the suit was maintainable, whether the cause of action was true, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages or injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove malicious intent in defamation claims, and errors in publication do not suffice to invoke defamatory damages.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal from trial court dismissal of damages suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants claim based on bona fide publication. (Para 3) |
| 3. trial court's finding on defamation and burden of proof. (Para 4) |
| 4. consideration of appeal without finding of perversity. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. burden on plaintiff to prove malice in defamation. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
EASWARAN S., J.
The present appeal arises out of the dismissal of O.S.No.66/2011 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Kuthuparamba, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.22/2014, on the files of the Sub Court, Thalassery.
2. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was instituted for damages and injunction on account of an alleged news report that came in the Mathrubhumi daily Kannur Edition on 10.04.2010. As per the said news report, the defendants had published certain malicious article against the plaintiff when he was working as Village OfÏcer in Sivapuram Village. The content of the said article pertains to an alleged swindling of 112 acres of land, which was reserved for the landless people. The plaintiff contended that the publication which was made by the defendants was per se untrue and it was purposefully made with an intention to defeat the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed damages to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- .
3. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by raising the following contentions. According to the defendants, the article in the newspaper was published based on a registration of a crime against the plaintiff by the Vigilance Department as per enquiry initiated vide proceedings No. VE 15/04/10 KNR. As a follow-up of that proceedings, an FIR was registered in the Vigilance Court as VC No. 10/2007. Thus, it was contended that, since the article was published with a bona fide intention as per the facts gathered from reliable sources, the same cannot be evidently defamatory, and therefore, the article falls within the purview of freedom of Press. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts. A1 to A24 documents were marked, and on behalf of the defendants, a copy of the FIR was marked as Ext.B1. PW1 to PW3 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff, whereas DW1 was examined on behalf of the defendants. The trial court on appreciation of evidence framed the following issues:
“7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed.
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
3) Whether the cause of action alleged is true
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages against the defendants as prayed for?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?
6) Relief and cost?”
4. On appreciation of the evidence and pleadings on record, the trial court came to a conclusion that the news article, which was published, does not amount to a defamatory one. Though it was found that there was a slight error of facts in the publication, going by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another ; [AIR 1995 SC 264] , the burden of proof to claim damages on account of a tortious liability being solely on the shoulders of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has not discharged the said burden, the defendants were entitled for the protection of the fact that no malice could be attributed against the said publication. Though the plaintiff carried forward to challenge an appeal before the sub-court, the same was also dismissed.
5. Heard Sri. R.Surendran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
6. On consideration of the submissions of Sri.R.Surendran, this Court does not find any reason to consider whether such appreciation interferes with the concurrent findings, though the evidence of the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court is perverse or not. This Court is of the considered view that, on a close reading of the judgment of the trial court as well as the First Appell
