The judgment established the principles of jurisdiction, choice of law, and personal tort under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the requirement for an act to be wrongful according to the law of both the place where it is committed and British India.

Tyabji, J.

1. One Sridevi Anterjanam of the Thazalplam Illom was suspected of having committed adultery. In accordance with a custom which is referred to in some detail in Vallabha v. Madusudanan (1889) I.L.R. 12 M. 495 an enquiry was held in the matter presided over by the Rajah of Cochin within his own territory. The enquiry was ceremonious but hardly in accordance with natural justice inasmuch as it, consisted in effect of a bare statement by the suspected woman giving the names of persons whom she charged with having committed adultery with her. On this statement without any opportunity being given to the persons named of defending themselves or rebutting the accusation, they were declared to be excommunicated. The plaintiff was one of the persons purported to be so excommunicated.

2. Subsequently an officer of the Cochin state, styled Sarvadhikarikar (literally general agent) addressed a letter Ex. B to the Dewan to the effect that the woman " was caused to be brought here after the Vicharanai (investigation)...and as a decision has been pronounced regarding her real state, it has been decided to lodge the abovesaid Sadhanam (suspected woman in) a place near the Chalakudy Oothupura... (choultry). As it has been ordered to arrive at once at a conclusion regarding the following: that as soon as the suspected woman (Sadhanam) is brought to Chalakudy she ought to be made to reside at a place in its neighbourhood, if available, if not she ought to be made to reside in a house constructed with mud walls and with beams, frame work, door and bolt made of bamboos; proper precaution ought to be taken so that she may not have an opportunity to hold intercourse with any. She ought to be provided with expenses at the rate of 9 edangalis of paddy and sundries per diem from the Oottupura at Chalakudy till the end of her time. And that...with regard to those that were implicated when the trial of the suspected woman (Sadhanan) was conducted, arrangements should be made to excommunicate the houses and the illoms to which they belong so that they may not frequent the temple, illom etc. frequented by stainless persons and that they may not touch tanks and wells etc., this matter is reported for information. Thus (written by) Gopala Desikachariar the Sarvadhikariakar (Agent for all things of your honour)" Ex. B. bears endorsements to the effect that copies were forwarded to various officers of this state of Cochin for "necessary action and report" or for "information and guidance."

3. The plaintiff sued in defamation. As against the 1st defendant it was alleged that he had announced, in the course of the investigation which I have referred, that the plaintiff had committed adultery with the said woman. The 1st deft is no more before the Court, the suit having been dismissed against him, and the dismissal upheld by a decision of this Court in S.A. No. 210 of 1906. His legal position need not therefore be further referred to.

4. The cause of action alleged against the 2nd defendant is that he delivered a copy of the order Ex. B. to an officer (styled the Pattamali) who is in charge of the Triprayar Devaswom or temple.

5. It is not denied that Ex. B. is defamatory. (Coopoosami Chetty v. Duraisami Chetty (1909) I.L.R. 33 M. 67) and it has been found that the 2nd defendant knowing its contents delivered a copy of it to the Pattamali. The decision of the lower courts that there was no publication by the 2nd defendant of the libel is therefore clearly wrong The King v. Burdett (1820) 4 B. and Ald. 95 : s.c. 106 E.R. 873.

6. Publication in regard to libel and slander does not require communication to more persons than one. There need not be anything like publication in the common acceptance of the term: Pullman v. Mill & Co. (1891) 1 Q.B. 524 The fact that the investigation above referred to was opposed to natural justice (Vallabha v. Madusudanan (1889) I.L.R. 12 M. 195 and Krishnasami v. Virasami (1886) I.L.R. 10 M. 133 at 143) is not at present