Defamation involving familial relationships can expose individuals to significant reputational harm, with the burden of proof resting on the claimant to establish falsehood.

James Foong J:

Introduction

These two cases, involving the same parties in their respective capacity as plaintiff and defendant in both the suits, are tried together. Both involve, primarily, the cause of action of defamation. For ease of reference I shall refer to the civil suit S5-23-08-97 as case "Suit 08", and suit number S2- 23-04-97 as "Suit 04".

In order to comprehend the substance and essence of these two cases it is necessary to initially describe the parties. Then their relationship with each other. Followed by their relationship with other major characters mentioned in the pleadings and the evidence adduced.

The plaintiff and the defendant are both advocates and solicitors. The plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the defendant. He is married to the defendant's eldest sister by the name of Vijayalakshmi Devi (Vijayalakshmi) who is also an advocate and solicitor. The defendant has a few other brothers and sisters. Those associated with these actions are:

Jegadevan a/l Nadchatiram (Jega), a brother of the defendant; he is an advocate and solicitor;

Dr. Mahadevevan a/l Nadchatiram (Dr. Mahadevan), a brother of the defendant; he is a medical practitioner;

Datin Saraswathy Devi (Saraswathy), a sister of the defendant; she is an advocate and solicitor;

Kamala Devi (Kamala), a sister of the defendant; she is an advocate and solicitor;

Datin Danapakia Devi (Danapakia), a sister of the defendant;

Suseela Devi (Suseela), a sister of the defendant.

The protagonist of the episode leading to the claims in these cases is the plaintiff's daughter - Shanti. She too, is an advocate and solicitor. She has a brother called Nadchatiram Thiruchelvasegram (Nad).

It is a fact, undisputed by all, that the principle cause of all the differences between these family members which started these actions, and numerous others, is the distribution of wealth - properties left behind by the patriarch: Nadchatiram s/o Muttucumaru (deceased) - the father of the defendant. After Nadchatiram (deceased) passed away, there were attempts to settle his estate among his surviving children. But these failed - leading to a series of suits by the siblings against each other. Much of the allegations in these two cases before me are borne out of these contested suits.

According to evidence adduced by the defence, and not denied by the plaintiff, Vijayalakshmi had refused to execute a settlement agreement for the distribution of the deceased estate property. This led to the filing of civil suits in the Seremban High Court, one of which bears the number 22-61-93 (Suit 61) by Vijayalakshmi and two others against the defendant, Jega and Suseela. This suit 61 alleges, inter alia, that Jega had committed misfeasance, fraud and breach of trust in handling the deceased estate property. Acting for Vijayalakshmi, through a power of attorney given under her hand, is her husband, the plaintiff. Laying the blame on the plaintiff as the mastermind behind the actions of Vijayalakshmi, the plaintiff claims that the defendant conspired with Jega, Saraswathy and his own daughter - Shanti to defame him. The objective is and was to force Vijayalakshmi to consent to the estate property settlement and to withdraw the mentioned suit (as well as others) against Jega the defendant and Suseela. The sting of the defamation is - incest by the plaintiff on Shanti, a daughter much loved by her parents - Vijayalakshmi and the plaintiff, but unfortunately a love not reciprocated.

It is against this backdrop that the sequence of allegations of defamation and conspiracy by the plaintiff is based. For ease of reference I shall adopt a chronological approach rather than those as set out by the plaintiff in his statement of claim.

The Pl