Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28971
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J
R.JAYARAJA MENON – Appellant
Versus
MATHRUBHUMI DAILY – Respondent
AS 476 1999
M/S P.V. MADHAVAN NAMBIAR, LATHA JAYARAJ & RAJIV JAYARAJ, SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN, SRI.RAVIKRISHNA
Defamation claims require careful consideration of pleadings, including documents deemed integral to the case, which must be evaluated for factual accuracy and justifications.
Headnote:
Defamation - Liability of Defendants - Code of Civil Procedure - Order VI, VII - Key provisions discussed include the requirement for pleadings and the inclusion of documents. The court found that certain documents were improperly disregarded as pleadings, impacting the dismissal and remand of cases.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a former Deputy Superintendent of Police, filed defamation suits against various media defendants for publishing articles regarding his alleged misconduct and suspension. Two suits were dismissed by the trial court, while others resulted in partial awards.
Issues: Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the defamation suits, particularly regarding the treatment of published materials and the justification by truth claimed by defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: Key legal principles were established regarding the necessity of including relevant documents in pleadings, as well as the criteria for justifying claims of defamation based on truth. The court underscored the importance of factual accuracy in such claims.
Final Decision: Some appeals were dismissed, and others were remanded for further adjudication concerning defamation claims.
J U D G M E N T
The 3rd respondent in A.S. No.527 of 1999 and the 1st respondent in A.S. No.651 of 1999 expired during the pendency of those appeals. The appellant-plaintiff filed statements in the said appeals that it is not necessary to implead legal representatives of those deceased respondents since liability of the defendants is joint and several.
2. Since the suits can stand even in the absence of respondents 1 and 3 in A.S. No.651 of 1999 and A.S. No.527 of 1999, O.S. Nos.82 and 83 of 1998 cannot abate as a whole. Abatement can only relate to respondents 3 and 1 in A.S. Nos.527 and 651 of 1999, respectively.
3. These appeals are brought from the common judgment and decree dated 19.12.1998 in O.S. Nos.84 of 1998, 82 of 1998, 81 of 1998 and 83 of 1998 respectively, of the Sub Court, Ottappalam. Parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as in the suits for convenience.
4. Plaintiff, at the relevant time was working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Malappuram. Defendants are the Printer, Correspondent, publisher, etc., of various dailies and weekly. News items/articles appeared in the said dailies and weekly about suspension/dismissal of the plaintiff from the service (allegedly) for receiving Rs.1,18,000/- as bribe. Plaintiff filed O.S. Nos.81, 82, 83 and 84 of 1998 against the respective Printer, Publisher, Correspondent, etc., of the dailies and weekly claiming damages. He alleged that the publications defamed him and that it lowered his reputation among the right thinking people of the Society.
5. Defendants raised a plea of justification by truth, apart from other contentions like limitation, etc.
6. The trial court, by its common judgment and decree dated 19.12.1998 dismissed O.S. Nos.81 and 84 of 1998. Dismissal of O.S. No.81 of 1998 was for the reason that Exts.A1 and A3 are the impugned publications involved in that suit and so far as imputations in Ext.A1 is concerned, there are no sufficient pleadings in the plaint and hence Ext.A1 cannot be looked into. So far as Ext.A3 is concerned, learned Sub Judge concluded that the statement in Ext.A3 is justified by Exts.X2 and X2(a). O.S. No.84 of 1998 was dismissed on a finding that the impugned statement in Ext.A21 is justified by Exts.X2 and X2(a). Plaintiff has preferred A.S. Nos.476 and 650 of 1999 challenging dismissal of O.S. Nos.84 and 81 of 1998, respectively.
7. O.S. No.82 of 1998 was decreed as prayed for directing the defendants therein to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest from date of the decree. That judgment and decree are challenged by the defendants in A.S. No.495 of 1999. Plaintiff is aggrieved to the extent that no interest was awarded from the date of suit until date of decree and has preferred A.S. No.527 of
1999.
8. O.S. No.83 of 1998 was decreed in part allowing the plaintiff to recover Rs.25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Plaintiff is aggrieved as the entire claim was not allowed and interest was awarded only from date of the decree and has preferred A.S. No.651 of 1999. Defendants in O.S. No.83 of 1998 have not challenged the judgment and decree against them.
9. Following points arise for a decision:
(I) Whether finding of learned Sub Judge that since contents of Ext.A1 are not pleaded in the plaint claim of the plaintiff in O.S. No.81 of 1998 is not sustainable is legally correct?
(II) Whether the finding that statements in Ext.A3 are justified is correct?
(III) Whether learned Sub Judge was right in accepting the plea of justification by truth raised by the defendants in O.S.
No.84 of 1998?
(IV) Whether damages awarded in O.S. No.83 of 1998 is sufficient?
(V) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get interest from the date of suit until date of decree?
10. Point Nos.I & II. These points concern O.S. No.81 of
1998. Exhibit A3 is the news item which appeared in the Malayala Manorama daily dated, 01.12.1985. There, it is stated that one Keeran died of heart disease when he was summoned by the vi
