Delhi District Court
Sh. Jasbir Singh vs Smt. Ravinder Kaur @ Renu on 12 December, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL ADJ03
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS / DELHI
CS No. 251/2012
1. Sh. Jasbir Singh
R/o. Sh. Sarwan Singh
R/o. JH36, Khirki Extn.,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 17.
2. Smt. Reena
W/o. Sh. Jasbir Singh
R/o. JH36, Khirki Extn.,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 17. ....Plaintiffs
Versus
Smt. Ravinder Kaur @ Renu
R/o. 9/156, Shyam Block, Kailash
Nagar, New Delhi 110031. ....Defendant
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the following preliminary issued framed on 18.09.2013: "Whether the present suit for defamation is not maintainable on account of alleged statements made by the defendant in course of judicial proceedings? OPD"
2. Brief facts are it is stated that the plaintiff had filed the present suit for damages for an amount of Rs. 10 lacs against the defendant for harming the reputation of the plaintiffs and other associated family persons of late Sh. Hari Singh. It is stated that CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 1/21 2 the grandfather of plaintiff no. 1 late Hari Singh was the owner of property no. 9/156, Shyam Block, Kailash Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) and lived in the said premises till his death in the year 1993. The said Late Hari Singh prior to his death on 07.05.1990 executed a deed of cancellation of will and cancelled all his previously executed wills.
3. It is further stated that the above said property was mutated in the name of the legal heirs of late Sh. Hari Singh in the year 1994 in the Municipal Record. It is further stated that Late Sh. Kamla Devi W/o. Sh. Karam Chand was allowed by the legal heirs of late Hari Singh to continue in the said said premises on the payment of Rs. 6500/ per month, as she was living in the said premises prior to the death of Late Hari Singh and after the death of said Kamla Devi, her grand son Sh. Mahinder Pal Singh who was also living along with Kamla Devi continued in the said premises on the terms and conditions as applicable at the time of Kamla Devi.
4. It is further stated that the said Kamla Devi w/o. Sh. Karam Chand and the mother of Sh. Surender Pal Singh had one house in the neighbourhood of the house of late Hari Singh, old House No. A1/9, new no. IX/97, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara, on 24.02.1958. The said Kamla Devi executed a Will in favour of his eldest son in the year 1984 with respect to the property above mentioned. It is further stated that the defendant is wife of late Sh. Surender Singh the second son of late Karam Chand. The said Surender Pal Singh was born on 08.06.1954 and he was CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 2/21 3 having criminal character who was convicted of the charge of murder. The said Surender Pal Singh died in the year 1986. It is further stated that Sh. Karam Chand father of Sh. Surender Pal Singh died sometimes in the year 1970.
5. It is further stated that after the death of Sh. Surender Pal Singh in the year 1986, his mother Kamla Devi broke all her relations with the defendant, for the reasons best known to them. The defendant had given birth to girl child in the year 1992 after six years of death of her previous husband Sh. Surender Pal Singh. It is further stated that the defendant came in the premises after her son from Late Surender Pal Singh, Mahinder Pal Singh was seriously ill, who finally died in the year 2001. The defendant continued in the above said premises after the death of Late Mahinder Pal Singh on the permission of the legal heirs of late Hari Singh.
6. It is further stated that the defendant taking advantage of the legal heirs of late Hari Singh being resident of Punjab tried to grab the said premises. In this regard, the defendant also approached for the mutation of the suit property in her name to the MCD claiming herself to be the daughter in law of late Hari Singh. It is further stated that due to the above activities of the defendant, the legal heirs of late Hari Singh moved an application before the Hon'ble High Court for the issuance of letter of administration in the name of LRs of Late Hari singh. In the said application for letter of administration, the defendant CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 3/21 4 due to the reasons mentioned above was also made party and in the reply filed by the defendant to the said application on 27.04.2004, defendant thereto claimed herself to be the daughter in law of the late Hari singh. It is further stated that LRs of late Hari Singh had also filed a suit for possession of the suit property against the defendant, which is pending in the court of Ld. ADJ, Delhi. In the said suit also, defendant has claimed herself to be the daughter in law of late Hari Singh.
7. It is further stated that the plaintiffs have come to know that the defendant has got the electricity meter transferred on 16.03.2005 in her name on the basis of claim of being daughter in law of late Hari Singh. It is further stated that the defendant is continuously claiming herself to be daughter in law of Late Hari Singh, in this way the defendant is claiming that Sh. Surender Pal Singh S/o. Late Karam Chand was son of late Hari Singh, which is totally false, wrong and frivolous.
8. It is further stated that Late Hari Singh was married to Smt. Ranjit Kaur who died in the year 1994, after the death of late Hari Singh. Late Hari Singh had three sons namely Sarwan Singh, Resham Singh and Nirmal Singh and one daughter namely Smt. Nirmala @ Bimla. Late Sh. Hari Singh had never married late Kamla Devi mother of Surender Pal Singh and at the same time, he had no physical relations with said late Kamla Devi. The said Late Hari Singh had also never adopted Surender Pal Singh or anybody else. The allegations made by the defendant give an impression CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 4/21 5 that late Hari Singh had extra marital relations with the mother of late Surender Pal Singh, as he had never adopted said Surender Pal Singh. The said false and fabricated allegations were being made only to grab the property of late Hari Singh and also to harm the reputation of the late Hari Singh and his family members.
9. It is further stated that the defendant in the garb of said false and fabricated story of claiming to be the daughter in law of late Hari Singh is trying to grab the suit property and in the said process, she has harmed the reputation of late grandfather of the plaintiff and as such has harmed the reputation of the plaintiff and his family members. It is further stated that late Hari Singh was a reputed person of his locality in the Punjab as well as in Delhi and was also very honest and up right person. Late Hari Singh was working in the Delhi Police and had a handsome earning at that time also. Therefore it is stated that the allegations are false and the plaintiffs and their family members feel ashamed in the society due to the above allegations. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs had got issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2007 and in the said notice, plaintiffs had called upon the defendant to publicly apologize for the harm of reputation of late Hari Singh and to pay Rs. 10 lacs as damages.
10.Written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant, in which it is stated that the present suit is false and fabricated and the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 5/21 6 against the defendant, as the defendant has been residing in the suit property with her father in law late Sh. Hari Singh and mother in law late Smt. Kamla Devi after her marriage with their son late Sh. Surinder Pal Singh in the suit property. It is stated that as per will dated 11.05.1982, defendant became the absolute owner of the suit property after untimely death of her husband in 1986 and her only son in 2001. It is further stated that late Sh. Hari Singh, father in law of the defendant, in his lifetime executed a duly registered Will dated 11.05.1982, wherein he categorically stated that Smt. Kamla Devi is his wife and Surinder pal Singh is his son and further details about the family mentioned explicitly clear and executed a Will in favour of his son Surinder Pal Singh and thereafter his son Mahender Pal Singh and his wife Ravinder Kaur @ Renu will be the owners.
11.It is further stated that after the death of the husband of the defendant in the year 1986 and her father in law in the year 1993 and also after the death of her son in the year 2001, the defendant became the absolute owner of the suit property. It is further stated that as per the said Will, defendant is entitled to 1/4 th share in each of the properties situated in District Hoshiarpur of Punjab. It is further stated that the defendant to protect the property had earlier filed eviction petitions bearing no(s). E 220/2003 and 229/2003 for eviction of her tenant Sh. Akhlaq Hussain, who was initially inducted as tenant by her father in law Sh. Hari Singh. It is denied that the defendant is tenant in the suit property at the rent of Rs. 7400/ per month.
CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 6/21 7
12.It is not denied that the plaintiffs had filed a case bearing no. 24/2003 for grant of letters of administration in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed as withdrawn. It is stated that another suit no. 157/2006 has been filed by the plaintiffs for possession and mesne profit, in which the defendant has moved an application u/o. 7 rule 11 CPC, which has been dismissed. It is therefore stated that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have based their claim of defamation on the basis of written statement filed in judicial proceedings and as per settled law, every person has right to defend themselves and no defamation can be made out on the basis of said defence. Therefore the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
13.Replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, in which the averments made in the written statement have been denied and those made in the plaint have been reiterated as correct.
14.Vide order dated 18.09.2013, following preliminary issue was framed "Whether the present suit for defamation is not maintainable on account of alleged statements made by the defendant in course of judicial proceedings? OPD". Thereafter both the parties have addressed their arguments on the above issue.
CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 7/21 8
15.I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Sh. R. K. Sharma and Ld. Counsel for the defendant Sh. B. S. Mathur along with Ms. Aditi Mathur and perused the record.
16.Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following judgment in support of his contentions AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3672.
17.On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon following judgments :
1. 23 (1983) Delhi Law Times 27
2. 198 (2013) Delhi Law Times 35
3. 198 (2013) Delhi Law Times 47
4. CS (OS) 1359 of 2011 decided on 31.07.2013 titled as Naunihal Singh Rana Vs. Sunil Kumar
18.Ld. counsel for the defendant has argued that admittedly the averments made by the defendant that Late Hari Singh was her father in law had been made during the judicial proceedings, as it was firstly made by the defendant in the reply to the letter of administration petition filed by the LRs of late Hari Singh before the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter when the defendant filed reply to the suit for possession filed by the said LRs of Late Hari Singh bearing no. 157/06. He has further argued that in view of the judgment relied upon by him, the said averments have been made by the defendant during the judicial proceedings, therefore CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 8/21 9 the doctrine of judicial privilege would be clearly available to those averments made by the defendant in those proceedings. He has further argued regarding the other allegation made by the plaintiffs in their plaint that the defendant had also tried for mutation of the suit property in her name in the year 2001 claiming herself to be the daughter in law of Late Hari Singh. Regarding this, he has argued that the said mutation was done by Commissioner of Municipal Corporation and had been done by him by following statutory procedure laid down under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the said act done by the Municipal Commissioner was performed by him while performing quasijudicial functions and not in administrative capacity.
19.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that the said contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendant has no strength and in the present case, no principle of judicial privilege, as claimed by the counsel for the defendant, is available to the defendant for making a false averment in the judicial proceedings that late Hari Singh was her father in law, which has defamed the family of Late Hari Singh, for which they have filed the present suit for defamation. He has further argued that the proceedings of mutation done before the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, where in the defendant had applied for the mutation of suit property, was not in the capacity of quasijudicial functions, but were administrative in nature and the Municipal Commissioner does not perform any quasi CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 9/21 10 judicial function. Even otherwise he has argued that all these issue(s) raise mixed questions of fact and law, which cannot be decided without evidence and trial. In this regard, he has relied upon a judgment AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3672 in which it was held as under : "The code confers no jurisdiction upon the court to try a suit on mixed issue of law and fact as a preliminary issue and where the decision on issue of law depends upon decision of fact, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue."
20.I have gone through the rival contentions. The relevant paras of the judgment 1998 (2013) DLT 35 relied upon by ld. Counsel for the defendant are reproduced as under :
33. The Patna High Court in Pandey Surinder Nath Singh V. Bageshwari Prasad, AIR 1961 Patna 164, observed that : "It is not that there is any privilege to be malicious. The reason for the doctrine is that it is desirable that persons who occupy certain positions, for example, Judge, Advocates, and witnesses, in the course of legal proceedings, should be CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 10/21 11 permitted to express themselves with complete freedom; and to secure their independence, Absolute Privilege is given to their acts and words, so that they should not be brought before other courts for inquiry merely on the allegation that they were malicious. It is a striking instance of the subordination of the individual's interest to that of the community."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
35. In an Allahabad case, Ali Mohammad V. Manna lal, AIR 1929 All 972, the party to the suit had put in an application containing a defamatory statement which formed the basis of the suit for damages.
It was held that Absolute Privilege attached to the said statement on the principle that there is an absolute privilege for parties, witnesses, counsel, jury or Judges in regard to words spoken in office, and this privilege extends to the statements in the affidavits made by parties or witnesses. This case followed its own Full Bench decision in the case Chunni Lal V. Narsingh Das, AIR 1918 All CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 11/21 12 69 (FB) which expressly laid down that defamatory statements made in the course of judicial proceedings were not actionable on the ground of absolute privilege. Similar has been held by the Rangoon and the Bombay High Court in Ma Kla Khin V. Li Khin Maung Li, AIR 1935 Rang 30 and Gangappagouda V. Bassaya, ILR 1943 Bom 167, respectively. Xxxxxxxxxxxx
37. The doctrine of judicial privilege has, in process of time, developed, and, now, it has been extended to tribunals exercising functions equivalent to those of an established court of justice.
The court in Pandey Surinder Nath Singh's case (supra), observed that : "This privilege extends to all courts, superior or inferior, civil or revenue or military. It applies not only to all kinds of Courts of Justice, but also to other tribunals recognized by law and acting judicially. The privilege, although it extends to tribunals acting in a manner similar to courts of justice, does not, however, apply to tribunals which merely CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 12/21 13 discharge administrative functions, or to officials possessing merely administrative as opposed to genuine judicial functions, and it makes no difference that in the performance of these administrative functions they exercise a judicial discretion. The privilege attaches not merely to proceedings at the trial, but also to proceedings which are essentially steps in judicial proceedings, including statements in pleadings. This privilege, therefore, will also apply to officers of court, who may have a duty to report in the course of a judicial proceeding."
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
41. It follows, therefore, and, it is also quite plain, from the above decisions, that the doctrine of judicial privilege, even when extended to tribunals exercising functions equivalent to those of an established court of justice, applies where there is an authorized inquiry, which though not before a court of justice, is before a tribunal which has similar attributes.
42. The essence of the rule of absolute CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 13/21 14 privilege, therefore, is that the complaint must be addressed to a body which has judicial functions, or, quasijudicial functions, and, the complaint must be a step in setting in motion judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.
43. Observing the facts of the present case in the background of the law and the principles discussed above, the present suit for defamation is based on the defamatory statements contained in the affidavits by the defendants in the proceedings before the Registrar of the Cooperative Society, Delhi. In my view, the proceedings before the Registrar of the Cooperative society are quasijudicial in nature.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
46. Thus to conclude, the statements made in the affidavit being filed by the defendants in the course of judicial proceedings before the Registrar of the Society is Absolutely privileged and for the said reason cannot be made basis for any defamatory action. In the light of this observation, the present plaint deserves to CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 14/21 15 be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, 1908 being barred by law.
47. Decision on the second issue in favour of the defendants that the statements made in the affidavit are entitled to absolute privilege automatically disposes of the third issue. Once the statements are held to be Absolutely Privileged, they would always remains privileged and the issue whether the plaint was prematurely filed pending adjudication by the Registrar of the Society is of no significance."
21.In view of the law laid down in the said judgment, it is absolutely clear that the reply filed by the defendant in testamentary case no. 24/03, wherein she claimed that she was the daughter in law late Hari Singh and written statement filed by the defendant in suit bearing no. 157/06 titled as Swaran Singh Vs. Ravinder kaur wherein she had claimed that Sh. Hari Singh was her father in law, is absolutely privileged in view of the law laid down in the said judgment and therefore the averments made in the pleadings or in the affidavit are absolutely privileged by the doctrine of judicial privilege and no action can lie in favour of the plaintiffs claiming defamation in respect of the averments made in the said judicial proceedings.
CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 15/21 16
22.Regarding the arguments of ld. Counsel for the defendant and contrary arguments of ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the application for mutation of the suit property before the Municipal Commissioner would not be in the nature of performing judicial function by the said Municipal Commissioner, but it would be in the nature of performing administrative functions. This aspect needs to be look into the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the relevant section 128 of the Act, which deals with mutation is reproduced as under : "128. Notice of transfers :
1). Whenever the title of any person primarily liable for the payment of property taxes on any land or building is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred shall within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after registration, if it is registered, or after the transfer is effected, if no instrument is executed, give notice of such transfer in writing to the commissioner.
2). In the event of the death of any person primarily liable as aforesaid, the person on whom the title of the CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 16/21 17 deceased devolves, shall give notice of such devolution to the commissioner within six months from the date of the death of the deceased.
3). The notices to be given under this section shall be in such form as may be determined by byelaws made under this Act, and the transferee or the other person on whom the title devolves shall, if so required, be bound to produce before the commissioner any documents evidencing the transfer or devolution.
4). Every person who makes a transfer as aforesaid without giving such notice to the commissioner shall, in addition to any penalty to which he may be subjected under the provisions of this Act, continue liable for the payment of all property taxes from time to time payable in respect of the land or building transferred until he gives such notice or until the transfer has been recorded in the commissioners book, but nothing in this section shall be held to affect the CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 17/21 18 liability of the transferee for the payment of the said tax.
5). The commissioner shall record every transfer or devolution of the title notified to him under this section in his books and in the assessment list;
provided that before recording such transfer or devolution of the title, the commissioner shall satisfy himself that any duty on transfer of property leviable under section 147 has been paid.
6). On a written request by the commissioner, the registrar or sub registrar of Delhi appointed under the Indian Registration Act 1908 (16 of 1908) shall furnish such particulars regarding the registration of instruments of transfer of immovable properties in Delhi, as the commissioner may from time to time, require.
7). Such information shall be furnished as soon as may be after the registration of an instrument of transfer is effected, or, if the CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 18/21 19 commissioner so requests, by periodical returns at such intervals as the commissioner may fix."
23.From the bare perusal of the said act, it is apparent that the Municipal commissioner cannot decide the application for mutation one way or the other giving opportunity of being heard to the opposite party, in any case, he has to act in accordance with the statutory principles and byelaws framed under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, therefore the commissioner has to act in accordance with the statutory principles laid down in the said act and he cannot decline or accept the application without following the principles of natural justice, which is inherent in the same. If his act is not in accordance with the statutory principles and byelaws as laid down in the said act, then the same is amenable to challenge before any civil court or in writ jurisdiction before the Hon'ble High Court. Since the valuable rights of the parties are decided in allowing or disallowing application the mutation in any case, the noncompliance of the provisions of the section 128 are punishable under section 461 of the above act and penalty for the same has been provided as per schedule 12 annexed with the said act. Even otherwise, he has to exercise his discretion in allowing or disallowing the said application on sound principles for exercising judicial discretion. Therefore it can be said that the Municipal Commissioner, when he deals with the application for mutation, performs quasijudicial functions and his work while CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 19/21 20 dealing with the said act cannot be said to be purely administrative in nature. In view of the above judgment 1998 (2013) DLT 35 (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the defendant, the statement made in the affidavit or in the pleadings filed by the defendant in the course of proceedings before the Municipal commissioner are being quasi judicial in nature, therefore any statement made in the affidavit or pleadings filed by the defendant in the course of proceedings before the Municipal Commissioner is absolutely privileged and for this reason cannot be made basis for any defamatory action. Therefore no suit for defamation can lie on the basis of averments / claim made in the said proceedings before the municipal commissioner.
24.Regarding the contention of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the above questions raised by the defendant are mixed question of facts and law, which cannot be decided without leading of trial and evidence. The said arguments is not tenable, as it is apparent from the above discussion that the said questions raise pure questions of law and needs no trial, or leading of evidence.
25.Regarding somewhat feeble averment made by the plaintiffs in their plaint that defendant had also got the electricity meter transferred on 16.03.2005 in her name on the basis of her false claim that she was the daughter in law of late Hari Singh. Since the plaintiffs have already placed on record various documents in this regard during their evidence, but from the said CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 20/21 21 documents, it can be discerned that the defendant had done so, as alleged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had also examined PW2, witness from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., but he has not produced on record any document from which it can be gathered that the defendant had moved any such application before them claiming Late Hari Singh to be her father in law. Further it appears from his testimony and the documents produced by him that defendant had only furnished an affidavit before the BSES giving no objection that the electricity meter installed in the suit premises be installed in the name of her mother Smt. Shakuntla Seth.
26.In view of the above discussion, the preliminary issue framed on 18.09.2013 is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs. As a resultant, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on account of alleged statements made by the defendant, having been made in the course of judicial proceedings, therefore the doctrine of judicial / absolute privilege will be available to the defendant. Therefore the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
27.Decree sheet be drawn.
28.File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Sanjeev Aggarwal) COURT ON 12.12.2013 ADJ(Central03) / Delhi 12.12.2013 CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 21/21