Post-decree in defamation suit, liability survives against deceased defendant's estate; qualified privilege protects good faith complaints absent malice and publication.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

The second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2013 in A.S. No.89 of 2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, by which the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2011 in O.S. No.149 of 2010 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, were confirmed.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were described in the suit.

3. The suit in O.S. No.149 of 2010 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as damages on the ground that the appellant/defendant had defamed him.

4.The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that he is an Advocate practising at Cuddalore for about ten years and enjoying a good reputation. The defendant engaged him in the final decree proceedings arising out of O.S. No.300 of 1974. According to the plaintiff, since the defendant did not cooperate with him, the final decree application in I.A. No.889 of 2005 came to be dismissed for default. He would further state that he thereafter appeared for the defendant in A.S. Nos.1 and 2 of 2005 and conducted those appeals successfully.

5.It is further stated that, on 05.01.2006, the entire case bundle was returned to the defendant and he was informed that the original judgment and decree of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to O.S.No. 300 of 1974 had already been filed before the Court. In spite of this, the defendant gave a complaint dated 18.03.2010 accusing the plaintiff of misconduct. That complaint was later enquired into by the Legal Services Authority and was ultimately closed on the finding that the documents were available in the Court records.

6.According to the plaintiff, the complaint was false, malicious and defamatory, causing injury to his professional reputation. On that basis, he sought damages.

7.The defendant contested the suit by stating, among other things, that the complaint had been given in good faith only for getting back the documents and not with any intention to defame the plaintiff. He also stated that he was not well versed in English and that, although he had given the complaint in Tamil, it had been translated by others. According to him, there was no publication in the eye of law, the complaint was a privileged communication addressed to the competent authority, and the plaintiff had not proved any actual damage to his reputation.

8.The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, partly decreed the suit and awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- as damages to the plaintiff. The first appellate Court, on appeal, confirmed that judgment and decree.

9.Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, the sole defendant filed the present second appeal. During the pendency of the second appeal, the sole appellant/defendant died, and his legal representatives were brought on record.

10.At the time of admitting the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

a) Whether the principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona will apply since the defendant/appellant died during the pendency of this Second Appeal and the suit itself was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground of the defamatory statement made by the defendant/appellant against the plaintiff?

b) Whether the subsequent event that has taken place during the pendency of this Second Appeal will bring to an end the very cause of action based on which the suit was filed since the nature of allegation will confine itself only to the d