Defamation requires proving malice, public interest, and intention to harm reputation.

JUDGMENT

These matters are listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022 passed in R.A.Nos.26/2020 and 30/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madikeri.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he is a retired army officer and he is the son of Sri C M Poonacha, who was the Chief Minister of ‘C’ State Coorg. The plaintiff has been settled at coffee estate, Pollibetta, Kodagu district after his retirement. To protect environment in Kodagu district, an organization ‘Kodagu Model Forest’ was established with movement of protection of forest. The plaintiff is the active member in the said organization. The plaintiff has co-ordination with wildlife and environment protection groups in Karnataka. The plaintiff was President of Coorg wildlife Society between 2003 to 2009 and he was Secretary of Kodagu Model Trust, since 2005. Defendant No.4 is the former member of Virajpet Taluk Panchayath from Bharathya Janatha Party. Defendant No.4 and his associates falsely accused the plaintiff for stalling Kootiyala to Virajpet road in Dodava Cultural Mela, organized by State Government and Kodava Samaja at Birunani. In that function, the plaintiff was an invitee but he did not attend the function. Thereafter, the plaintiff had got information that the supports of timber lobby are creating disturbance in the said function with regard to inviting the plaintiff to the said function. In the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant No.4 made false and defamatory accusation against the plaintiff and his late father. Defendant No.4 and his associates convened a press conference of the media to explain about protest. Defendant No.4 made accusation against the father of the plaintiff stating that when the father of the plaintiff was Chief Minister of Kodagu ‘C’ State, he had sold ‘C’ State of Kodagu hence, no need of inviting the plaintiff to the said function and the plaintiff is working against the welfare of the Kodagu and there was an attempt to remove the innocent people from the place and the plaintiff is causing obstruction for formation of 500 meters road and he made false allegation with an intention to defame the plaintiff and his father in the news conference. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of defamation and claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendants.

4. In pursuance of suit summons, defendant No.4 appeared and filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. But he admitted tat the press conference was convened by him and he further contended that there was no intention to defame the plaintiff and by suppressing the material facts, he had filed the suit and the same was not maintainable. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages.

5. The Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and two other witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P11. On the other hand, defendant No.4 has been examined as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D6. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record decreed the suit and directed the defendant No.4 to pay the damages of Rs.40,000/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.30/2020 and the defendant also filed an appeal in R.A.No.26/2020 questioning the judgment of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record