A publication is defamatory if it adversely affects the reputation of an individual, even if not perse defamatory.

JUDGMENT

The defendant in O.S.No.735/1994 before the Sub Court, Kottayam, who suffered a decree for damages, is the appellant. The parties and facts hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.

2. The suit was one for damages for defamation.

According to the plaintiff, he was born blind and continues to be blind. He used to receive financial aid from others and the people offered financial help for his livelihood. On 1.12.1992 the defendant is alleged to have published a notice under the caption “യ(cid:2)ശ(cid:4)ക(cid:6)(cid:7)സ(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4) ഇന (cid:4)(cid:14) അത (cid:4)(cid:10)ങള ക(cid:19)വര(cid:22)(cid:7)ക(cid:4)ന(cid:4)“. In the said notice there was a sub caption “ ഒര(cid:4) അന (cid:4)ഭവ സ(cid:28)ക(cid:30)(cid:14)“. The defendant is alleged to have published a statement said to have been given by the plaintiff stating that he gained eye sight after participation in a crusade conducted by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the notice was published without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and the statements contained therein are untrue. It was published with malicious intention. As a result of the said false publication, those persons, who were extending financial aid to the plaintiff, stopped giving financial aid and that affected the livelihood of the plaintiff. More over, it has injured the reputation and credibility of the plaintiff in the eye of the public. He is looked down upon by those persons, who were sympathetic to him. As a consequence thereof, the plaintiff suffered mental agony and his reputation among the people is affected. On the basis of these allegations, a suit was filed for damages.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant. According to him, from 1984 till 1992 the plaintiff had openly declared in various forums and places that he gained eye sight by a divine touch of Lord Jesus Christ at the venue of the crusade held at Geliyadu Nagar, Njaliyakuzhi. The news item relating to the plaintiff had been in publication for over 8 years as he took no objection during all these years. In the religious crusade held at Vakathanam on 27.2.1984 the defendant would claim that the plaintiff voluntarily came forward with a request to offer special prayers to him. At that time he was completely blind and had come with the help of another person. As per his request, special prayers were offered to the plaintiff. It is stated that Rev. Dr. Clarans Johsons placed his hands on the plaintiff's head and prayed for some time. Short while thereafter, it is claimed that, the plaintiff openly declared that, he had seen a flash light during that period and that he gained eye sight and full vision. All those persons who had gathered for the crusade were witnesses to the same. Ever since then, the plaintiff and his relatives were regularly attending the services of the Church of God. In many of the gospels, it is stated that the plaintiff voluntarily appeared and spoke about his experience. The allegations on the contrary to the plaint are disputed and denied. It is further contended that as a result of the divine gift, the plaintiff had business of sale of bread. He was travelling freely and selling bread at various places. Further contention is that in March, 1992, the plaintiff approached the defendant and demanded huge amount which was not acceded to by the defendant. In retaliation to the same, the present proceedings had been initiated. Contending that there is no bonafide and merit in the allegations in the plaint, the defendant prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, issues were raised by the trial court. Evidence consists of testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A5 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendant had DWs 1 to 9 examined and Exts.B1 to B5 marked. The trial court found that the publication is not perse defamatory but went on to say that the claim made in the publication that the plaintiff had gained eye si