Judicial privilege does not protect defamatory statements made during proceedings if unrelated to the case, establishing grounds for defamation liability.

JUDGMENT :

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.

Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 96 , read with order XLI Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C against the judgment passed in OS No.31 of 2010 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad,

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs herein have filed a suit against the defendants Nos.1 to 3 seeking damages of Rs.10,01,000/- for causing loss and reputation and for defamation.

4. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are wife and husband and the defendants Nos.1 and are natural brothers of the Plaintiff No.1, Defendant No.3 is the husband of junior matieral aunt of the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 has filed OS No.3 of 2002 on the file of XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, seeking partition of the properties, including a joint family property and a self-acquired property of their deceased father, G. Mallesham against defendant No.1 and 2 and three others i.e., two sisters and her mother janamma.

5. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement, alleging that the said suit was fraudulently filed with sole intention to knock away the properties. During the proceedings, the defendant No.1 reportedly conspired with the third defendant to issue defamatory statements against the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff alleged that the defendant No.1 threatened her with assassination to deter her from pursuing the case, subsequently extending the threat to the plaintiff No.2 to withdraw the claim. The defendants also made accusations against the plaintiffs regarding their character, suggesting that the plaintiff No.1 maintained an illegitimate relationship with the second plaintiff before their marriage.

6. In the written statement, the defendant averted that the plaintiff No.1 left her paternal home while she was pregnant and implied uncertainty about her marital status. This narrative extended during cross-examination, where the defendant No.1 made claims about the plaintiffs' personal lives, including allegations of the plaintiff No.1 having been pregnant multiple times with the plaintiff No.2 prior to marriage. Defendant No.1 cross-examination escalated to baseless suggestions that the 2^nd plaintiff had inappropriate relationships plaintiff No.1 mother.

7. The plaintiffs claimed that the defamatory statements severely damaged their reputations, leading to public humiliation in front of other litigants in the court, where they faced disparaging looks and embarrassment due to the overzealous allegations made by the defendants. The plaintiffs sought damages amounting to Rs.10,01,000 for the alleged harm that the defamatory statements and actions caused, arguing that the impact of the defamation was irreparable and could not be quantified financially.

8. The defendants, in turn, filed a common written statement refuting the claims of defamation and disputing the alleged threats. They argued that the plaintiff No.1 has no locus standi the standing to bring the partition suit since the properties in question were inherited and rightfully willed to them by their father. They contended that the will deed dated 06.03.1