KAN SINGH, J.—The second appeal before me is by a defendant and arises out of a suit for damages for libel. It raises questions involving the essential distinction between what are known as general damages and those characterised as special damages, as also about the mode of pleading special damages.

2. On 28 9-57 a notice purporting to have been issued by the defendant Sri Bala Ram Kachhawaha appeared in a Hindi News paper Lok Jeevan Published by Shri Shyamsunder Vyas defendant No. 2. The paper had two offices; one at Jodhpur and another at Jaipur but it is printed at Jaipur. Plaintiff Sardarmal was an estate agent i.e. he used to bring about the sale and purchase of immovable properties on commission basis. Sri Balaram Kachhawaha was a tenant of the plaintiffs son and was occupying a shop at Sardarpura, Jodhpur. The plaintiff considered this notice to be defamatory of himself and accordingly filed the suit for damages to the tune of Rs. 3000 both against Shri Balaram & Shri Shyamsunder in the court of Civil Judge, at Jodhpur.

3. Both the defendants filed separate written statements. Shri Balaram denied that he was the author of the notice purporting to have been published by him in the Lok Jeevan. In the alternative he pleaded that whatever was stated in the notice concerning the plaintiff, was true. Shri Shyamsunder took the position that the notice of complained of had been published by him in his paper at the behest of defendant No. 1 Sri Balaram Kachhawaha. He denied that it was defamatory of the plaintiff.

4. The learned Civil Judge framed a number of issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. He came to the conclusion that it was Shri Balaram Kachhawaha at whose instance defendant No. 2 published the notice in the paper; that it was defamatory of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had suffered damages on account of the notice. He further held it proved that the plaintiff suffered loss of business to the tune of Rs. 1000/-. He further held that the plaintiff was also entitled to the general damages to the tune of Rs. Rs. 2000/-. Accordingly he passed a decree for Rs. 3000/- against both the defendants.

5. Aggrieved by this decree, the two defendants filed separate appeals in the court of the District Judge, Jodhpur. The learned District Judge affirmed the findings of the first court both regarding the notice in question being defamatory of the plaintiff as well as regarding the defendant Sri Balaram Kachhawaha being its author. As regards the quantum of damages the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff had been successful in proving special damages to the extent of Rs. 1000/- but as regards the general damages he reduced the amount from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 500/- only. In the result the decree was reduced to an amount of Rs. 1000/- only. It is against the appellate decree of the learned District Judge that Shri Balaram Kachhawaha has come in second appeal. Shri Shyamsunder defendant No. 2 has not chosen to file any further appeal and we are not concerned with him.

6. While assailing the decree of the learned District Judge, learned counsel for the appellant candidly accepted that it was a finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the two courts below that it was Shri Balaram Kachhawaha who was the author of the notice complained of. The learned counsel further did not question the correctness of the conclusion reached by the courts below that the notice was defamatory of the plaintiff. He, however, strenuously contended that the special damages awarded by the courts below have neither been pleaded in the plaint nor was there any adequate proof of such special damages. The argument, therefore, centred round this question Learned counsel invited my attention to a number of cases which I propose to refer hereinafter. He also cited a few passages from Halsburys Laws of England and Salmonds Law of Torts which, too, I propose to deal with hereinafter.

7. In Odgers on Libel & Slander (Sixth edition), the author points out

Click Here to Read the rest of this document