A claimant in defamation does not need to prove fame to seek damages; jurisdiction was properly assessed under CPC provisions.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The defendant in O.S. No.7206 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, District Court, Chennai is the appellant in the present First Appeal.

2. PLEADINGS:

2.1. Plaint in brief:

The plaintiff is the correspondent of PJ Gupta High School, Ambattur and a member of registered Trust Venkatapuram Cultural Association, since 1992. The Trust runs the School and 2500 under privileged students are studying the said School. The plaintiff joined the Management Committee, at which point of time, the School was only a middle School with classes upto eight. The plaintiff has single handedly raised funds to build RCC roofing class rooms and also upgraded the School to High School in 1999. The plaintiff enjoys high reputation in the education fraternity in Chennai. The Managing Committee, Parent and Teacher Association as well as old students have recognized the untiring efforts of the plaintiff, in raising resources for the development of the School.

2.2.The defendant has deliberately and maliciously circulated false information by issuing letters to third parties, with a view to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. The defendant was removed from primary membership of Venkatapuram Cultural Association by unanimous decision of the Governing Committee on 14.06.2009, after coming to know that the defendant had withdrawn huge sums of money from the Trust account and was not able to satisfy or explain such withdrawal.

2.3. The defendant blaming the plaintiff for his removal, has indulged in defaming the plaintiff, by sending a letter on 13.06.2009 to Round Table of India, of which the plaintiff is a member for several years. The letter proceeds as if the plaintiff had withdrawn money towards commission for getting donation from Round Table of India. This conduct of the defendant has damaged the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never took any money for his personal benefit from out of the money raised by the Round Table of India or any other charitable organisation. As a follow up to the defendant’s letter, the President of the Trust has addressed a letter dated 26.06.2009 to the Chairman of Madras, Spice Round Table 159, explaining the reason why the defendant has sent such a defamatory letter and that the plaintiff has not been cause for the defendant’s removal from the Trust. The plaintiff was even required to be hospitalized on account of this, his health suffering a set back as a direct result of the defendant’s defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs.11 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and trauma.

2.4. Written Statement in brief:

The suit has been filed before this Court without jurisdiction. The entire cause of action arose in Ambattur, where the School is running and the plaintiff is not as virtuous as projected in the plaint, as he has diverted 10% from and out of the donations towards commission, which is unbecoming of a member of the Trust. The defendant further states that the plaintiff was removed as correspondent of the School and he and his wife, whom the plaintiff had appointed, were restrained from operating the bank account of the School on account of several irregularities committed by them. The defendant is also a member of Round Table of India and on coming to know that the plaintiff was drawing commission out of donations given by the Round Table to the School, only in order to bring out such financial irregularities, the defendant had addressed the letter. It was only in the interest of the Trust as well as the School. The defendant has not caused any mental agony or stress as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not pleaded as t