Bangalore District Court
G.R. Murali vs J.H. Anil Kumar on 10 June, 2016
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title sheet for
judgments in suits,
(R.P. 91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2016.
PRESENT:
Sri PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA, B.A.,LL.B.(Spl.),
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4363/2008
PLAINTIFF : G.R. Murali,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o. Late G.V. Ranganna,
Residing at No.140,
8th Cross, N.R. Colony,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
(By Sri K.T. Dakappa, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. J.H. Anil Kumar,
Major in age,
(Defendant No.1's father's
name is not known to the
plaintiff),
Residing at No.21,
Gurudatta Lay-out,
Hosakere Halli,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
2. M/s. Rastrottana
Mudranalaya,
Kempe Gowda Nagar,
Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru - 560 019.
-2- O.S. No.4363/2008
(Defendant No.1 by Sri K.C. Vishwanatha,
Advocate)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri B.M. Adiga, Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 04-07-2008
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : For damages and
pronote, Suit for declaration permanent injunction.
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 06-01-2012
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 10-06-2016
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 7 years, 11 months, 6 days
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking decree directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000-00 as damages and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from writing or publishing or circulating any other defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff or his family members.
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.4363/2008
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-
Plaintiff has contended that he is a resident of N.R. Colony, Bengaluru and he has rendered peaceful service to the poor and the needy persons in the surrounding areas from last several years. Plaintiff is a founder President of a social organization known as Niranthara Seva Samsthe which was founded during the year 1988. The said organization headed by plaintiff and doing useful services to the residents of Narasimharaja Colony, Thyagaraja Nagar and surrounding areas. Plaintiff has been carrying on social and educational activities in the area from 1988 through the said Niranthara Seva Samsthe as the President and Founder Member. Some of the public works conducted by the said Niranthara Seva Samsthe under the leadership of plaintiff are published in the Soveneer of the Samsthe. Plaintiff has acquired goodwill and reputation not only from the people of the said area but also from the surrounding areas. The plaintiff has contested the last Corporation election from Basavanagudi Ward as Indian National Congress candidate inasmuch as the plaintiff is the member of the said party having good reputation. Plaintiff command respect from residents of the said area and he is rendering service to the poor students and also aged persons. Plaintiff already commenced distribution of free study material to more than 500 students every year. Niranthara Seva Samsthe also started service of Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.4363/2008 free Ambulance to the needy people of the area from the last four years.
It is submitted that the defendant claims to be owner and publisher of weekly by name Na Kanda Bengaluru. The said weekly was started publication just before last public election. The said publication is founded to make money from blackmailing the public. The second defendant is said to be Printer of said publication. The first defendant had no acquaintance whatsoever with the plaintiff. The first defendant is an utter stranger to the plaintiff in as much as the Editor of this paper is nothing to do with N.R. Colony residents of the plaintiff in question. First defendant is not the resident of N.R. Colony or Basavanagudi Ward. First defendant has approached the plaintiff just before last assembly election and demanded for ransom money to write about the plaintiff. However, plaintiff refused to pay any money to the first defendant contending that there is no need for the first defendant to write anything about the plaintiff. First defendant who carrying on malicious intention and not happy with the refusal of paying money appears to be highly jealous and started a plan of indulging in character assassination of the plaintiff. First defendant published an Article in the said weekly under the heading G.R. Muraliya Tharale Cheshtegalu containing per se defamatory imputation concerning the plaintiff. It is submitted that the imputation made by the defendant against the plaintiff Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.4363/2008 in the said article is as under - "§¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄrAiÀÄ J£ï.Dgï. PÁ¯ÉÆäAiÀÄ£ÀÄß . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £ÀA©PÉAiÉÄà E®èzÀAvÁVzÉ." It is submitted above said imputation against plaintiff are made falsely without any regard for truth and in a malicious manner. The said imputations are per se defamatory and they have been made without any sense of responsibility or decency with the sole object of harming the reputation of the plaintiff and his family members in the Society. The first defendant knowing fully well that his action in writing, printing and publishing and so also circulating the said article will not only give raise to tortuous liability but also would amount to serious criminal offences by mentioning the address of the printers who have printed this article is also liable for prosecution. It is submitted that after the news item stated above was published and circulated large number of people who are highly placed in the society are telephoning to the plaintiff and his family members and enquiring about the imputations made by the defendants in the said weekly. The plaintiff is receiving innumerable enquiries from various categories of people in the society and particularly from Basavanagudi ward. It is submitted that the plaintiff reliably learnt defendants have also planning to publish some more false and defamatory statements in their next issues and also making efforts to distribute the copies containing the false and defamatory statements with a view to harass the plaintiff. Defamatory statements by the first defendant will cause further Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.4363/2008 irreparable injury and damage to the plaintiff. With this submission, plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.
3. On the other hand, in pursuance of summons, defendants 1 and 2 have appeared through their respective Counsel and filed their separate written statement. The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.1 are as follows -
Defendant No.1 has contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable under law nor on facts and it is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that there is no cause of action for the purpose of suit and plaintiff before claiming any damages ought to have issued notice demanding amount of damages claimed and as such there is no cause of action for the suit for damages. Defendant No.1 has admitted plaintiff is resident of N.R. Colony and he is also admitted plaintiff is founder President of social organization known as Niranthara Seva Samsthe. Defendant No.1 has denied plaintiff has been carrying social and educational activities from 1988 through said Niranthara Seva Samsthe. Defendant No.1 has also denied plaintiff was popular in the locality and in fact residents of locality have many times criticized the plaintiff's acts and actions. Defendant No.1 has denied plaintiff is having good reputation with political party and plaintiff commands respect from the residents of the area. Defendant No.1 also denied Niranthara Seva Samsthe started services to the needy people of the area.
Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.4363/2008 Defendant No.1 has admitted he is owner and publisher of weekly by name Na Kanda Bengaluru which was started way back in the year 2006. It is denied publication is founded to make money from blackmailing the public. He has also denied that he had no acquaintance with the plaintiff. Further denied he had approached plaintiff before the last assembly election and demanding ransom money to write about the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 had admitted with regard to publication of article in the weekly under the heading G.R. Muraliya Tharale Cheshtegalu but he has denied the said article containing per se defamatory imputation concerning the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has contended article published was based on the public opinion, information and materials collected by the first defendant during the enquiry and investigation and as such they are based on informations furnished by the general public and opinion expressed by the general public.
Defendant has denied they are also planning to publish some more false and defamatory statements in their next issues and also making efforts to distribute the copies containing the false and defamatory statements with a view to harass the plaintiff. With this submission, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit.
Defendant No.2 in the written statement has contended that the defendant No.2 is not the printer of the publication Na Kanda Bengaluru. Defendant No.2 Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.4363/2008 is not liable for any prosecution as the said publication is not printed by the defendant. First defendant has played fraud on the defendant by falsely representing that magazine is printed at the press owned by second defendant. It is submitted that the first defendant has committed criminal offence against the defendant No.2. Therefore, after receipt of summons, defendant No.2 has lodged police complaint against the first defendant. It is submitted that the questioned article is not printed by the second defendant and no order is placed by the first defendant with the second defendant for any printing in future. Lastly, it is submitted that the defendant No.2 is a reputed printing press run by a social charitable trust. It mostly prints educational journals, research magazines, historical, research and philosophical books. If any member of the public places any order for printing, the same is accepted. On the basis of the records, it is clear that defendant No.1 has played fraud on the defendant No.2 also. With this submission, defendant No.2 prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the above said pleadings, this Court has framed the following -
ISSUES
1) Does the plaintiff prove that, with an intention to defame him, the defendants 1 and 2 have published defamatory article against him as alleged?
Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.4363/2008
2) Does the plaintiff prove that he sustained damages to his reputation due to the act of the defendants as alleged?
3) Does the plaintiff prove invasion of his right by the defendants as alleged?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Damages as prayed?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent as prayed?
6) What Order or Decree?
5. In order to substantiate the plaint averments, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and closed his side. When the case was posted for defendants' evidence, defendant No.2 himself examined as D.W.1 and got documents marked as per Exs.D.1 to D.6. Defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.2 and got documents marked as per Exs.D.19 to D.26. The documents Exs.D.7 to D.18 are confronted to D.W.1 by the Advocate for defendant No.1 during the cross-examination of D.W.1.
6. I have heard arguments of both the sides.
Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.4363/2008
7. My findings on the above Issues are as follows:-
ISSUE No.1 - Partly Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - Partly Affirmative;
ISSUE No.3 - Partly Affirmative;
ISSUE No.4 - Yes, against Defendant No.1;
ISSUE No.5 - Yes, against Defendant No.1;
ISSUE No.6 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
10. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3 : Since these Issues are inter-related with each other, they are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetition of facts.
11. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a resident of N.R. Colony and is founder President of a social organization known as Niranthara Seva Samsthe and plaintiff has been carrying on social and educational activities in the area from 1988 through the said Niranthara Seva Samsthe. He has argued plaintiff command respect from the residents of the said area and is rendering service to the poor students and also aged persons and activities of the plaintiff kept the Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.4363/2008 plaintiff in high esteem in the eye of local people. It is argued that first defendant being the owner and publisher of a weekly by name Naa Kanda Bengaluru though he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff though he is not resident of N.R. Colony published article in the weekly under the heading "G.R. Muraliya Tharale Cheshtegalu" containing per se defamatory imputation concerning the plaintiff. It is argued defendant No.2 is a Printer of the said publication.
Both defendants with an intention to defame him have published defamatory article. Lastly it is argued plaintiff has produced the said article before the Court and defendant No.1 in the cross-examination has clearly admitted that he is the person printed the questioned article.
12. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has admitted with regard to status of the plaintiff in the society and he has also admitted that he is the owner and publisher of weekly by name Naa Kanda Bengaluru. Defendant No.1 further admitted with regard to publication of questioned article, but he has taken contention article published was based on the public opinion, information and materials collected by him. Defendant No.2 has taken contention that he has not been printed the publication Naa Kanda Bengaluru. In fact, first defendant has committed criminal offence against him, therefore, he has lodged police complaint against defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 has taken Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.4363/2008 contention since defendant No.1 has played fraud on him, he is not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff.
13. On careful perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence of both the sides, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has proved that defendant No.1 with an intention to defame him had published defamatory article against him and defendant No.1 has caused damage to the reputation of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not proved that defendant No.2 is a printer of the questioned newspaper. On the other hand, defendant No.2 has established that defendant No.1 played fraud on him in printing the name of defendant No.2 as publisher in the questioned newspaper.
14. In order to substantiate the averments of the plaint, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and in his evidence he has reiterated the averments of the plaint. In his evidence he has specifically deposed that defendant No.1 being the owner and publisher of the weekly by name Naa Kanda Bengaluru has published publication with an intention to defame him. Further, he has deposed that the said publication contains defamatory article is as under:-
"§¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄrAiÀÄ J£ï Dgï PÁ¯ÉÆäAiÀÄ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ¨Áj ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÄwÛ §¤ß C°è vÀ¯ÉªÀiÁ¹zÀ ªÀåQÛAiÉƧ⠤ªÀÄUÉ vÀUÀ°PÉƼÀÄîvÁÛ£É ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ f Dgï ªÀÄÄgÀ½ÃzÀsgï ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ CZÀÑ ªÀiÁzÀsé ¨ÁæºÀät£ÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzɯÁè ¥ÀgÉÆÃr Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.4363/2008 PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£Éß....... CªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉà «Ægï ¸ÁzÀsPï DzÀªÀ£ÀÄ....... MAzÀÄ ¸ÀtÚ 20 EAlÄ 30 ¸ÉÊn£À ªÀÄ£É PÀlÄÖªÀªÀjAzÀ »rzÀÄ C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï PÀlÄÖªÀgÀ §½ F ªÀÄÄgÀ½ ¦ÃQgÀĪÀ gÉÆïïPÁ¯ï JµÉÖAzÀÄ ¯ÉPÀÌ ºÁPÀÄvÁÛ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ UÁ§j ºÀÄnÖ¸ÀĪÀµÀÄÖ ®PÀëUÀ¼À°è ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¹UÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ d£À ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉ........¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ªÉÆ£Éß £Á®ÄÌ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ £ÉÆÃlÄ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀ PÉÆqÉÆzÀPÉÌ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀvÀðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀj¹ ºÀt ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ FvÀ vÀ£ÀUÁUÀzÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ JAd®Ä w¤ß¹ PÉøÀÄ ºÁQ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ°è ¤¹ìêÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀªÀjzÁÝgÉ ..... EAw¥Àà ªÀÄÄgÀ½ÃzÀsgÀ J£ïDgï PÁ¯ÉÆäAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzsÁå ªÉÊ£ïì JA§ ªÀÄzÀsåzÀ CAUÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄaѸÀ®Ä 18- 06-2008 §ÄzÀsªÁgÀ zÀsgÀtô PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄ £ÀqɹzÁÝ£É. EzÀPÉÌ ¨É£É߮ĨÁV ¤AvÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ zÁégÀPÁ ºÉÆÃmÉ°£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÁå¥ÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀAzsÁå ªÉÊ£ïì¤AzÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄgÀ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀŸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä PÁtôPÉ M¦à¹ ¸ÀAzsÁå ªÉÊ£ïì «gÀÄzÀÞ zÀsgÀtô £ÀqɸÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀæZÉÆâ¹zÁÝgÉ...... ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄÄgÀ½AiÀÄ PÀtôÚUÉ PÁtÄwÛ®è KPÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀAeÉAiÀiÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀgÉ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼É¯Áè ¸ÉÃgÀĪÀÅzÉà F gÉÃSÁ ªÉÊ£ïì §½ ºÉÃVzÉ £ÉÆÃr ¢ UÉæÃmï ¸ÀªÀiÁd ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀPÀ f.Cgï.ªÀÄÄgÀ½AiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁd ¸ÉêÉ. £Átô, ªÉAPÀmÉñï, CxÀªÁ wAr¥ÉÇÃvÀ «Ælgï §rØ D±ÉÄÁÃPï, UÉÆæ EAvÀºÀ MAzÀÄ £Á®ÄÌ d£À ªÀiÁf gËrUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.4363/2008 eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°èlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ f.Dgï.ªÀÄÄgÀ½ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ J¯Áè ºÀqÀ¨ÀszÀAzsÉUÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ vÁåUÀgÁd£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ CªÀ£À JAd®Ä PÁ¸ÀÄwAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃrAiÀiÁ £ÉÆÃqÀzÀªÀgÀAvÉ PÀtÄÚªÀÄÄaÑPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ F ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ªÉAPÀlgÀªÀÄt¥Àà£À ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀA©PÉAiÉÄà E®èzÀAvÁVzÉ."
Further, he has deposed that the above said imputation against him are made falsely without any regard for truth and in a malicious manner. The said imputation are per se defamatory and they have been made without any sense of responsibility or decency with the sold object of harming him and his family members reputation in the society.
15. In order to establish that he is founder President of the social organization known as Niranthara Seva Samsthe and in order to show that he has been carrying on social and educational activities through the said Samsthe, plaintiff has produced the Soveneer of Niranthara Seva Samsthe marked as per Ex.P.1, invitations marked as per Exs.P.2 and P.3, news item published with regard to installation of a statute of T.R. Shamanna marked as per Exs.P.4 to P.7. Above said documents are helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove activities of the plaintiff kept him in high esteem in the eye of local people and it also establishes plaintiff has been carrying on social and educational activities.
Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.4363/2008 On the other hand, defendant No.1 in the written statement has admitted plaintiff is founder President of social organization known as Niranthara Seva Samsthe which was founded during the year 1988. Though defendant No.1 has contended that he has no knowledge with regard to services rendered by the plaintiff through Niranthara Seva Samsthe, but plaintiff by producing Exs.P.1 to P.7 proved that he has involved in social and educational activities through Niranthara Seva Samsthe. Though P.W.1 cross-examined at length in this regard, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence.
16. In order to establish that defendants with an intention to defame him have published defamatory article against him, he has produced Naa Kanda Bengalugu a fortnight magazine which contains questioned article which is marked as per Ex.P.8. Relevant portion is marked as per Ex.P.8(a). Plaintiff has also produced another fortnight magazine Naa Kanda Bengaluru which is marked as per Ex.P.9. Relevant portion is marked as per Ex.P.9(a). Similarly, plaintiff has produced one more fortnight magazine Naa Kanda Bengaluru which is marked as per Ex.P.15. The questioned article which is marked as per Ex.P.8(a) is per se defamatory and it has published only with an intention to defame the dignity of the plaintiff in the society. As I have discussed above, defendant No.1 has not at all denied publication of the said article with Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.4363/2008 regard to the plaintiff. In the said article, the words are used with regard to the plaintiff as "vÀ¯É ªÀiÁ¹zÀ ªÀåQÛ"
"¥ÀgÉÆÃr PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ£É" "«ÄÃgï ¸ÁzÀPï" "ºÀqÀ¨É zÀAzÉ", etc.
17. In the cross-examination, D.W.2 being the owner and publisher of Ex.P.8 (D1) has clearly admitted he has completed Diploma in Journalism and he is running Naa Kanda Bengaluru magazine since 2006. Further, he has admitted it is the duty of the Journalist to publish true facts or which are nearer to the truth. D.W.2 further admitted with regard to publication of article as per Ex.P.8(a). In the cross-examination, he has admitted meaning of "vÀ¯É ªÀiÁ¹zÀ ªÀåQÛ" is "zÀÄgÀAºÀAPÁj".
He has also admitted meaning of "¥ÀgÉÆÃr" is "PÉ®¸À E®èzÉ ¸ÀÄvÁÛrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛ". Further, he has admitted the meaning of "«ÄÃgÁ¸ÁzÀPï" is "M§âjAzÀ M§âjUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛ". He has deposed that since plaintiff is a bad person therefore he has published the above said article after collecting information. If that being the case, it is not clear why D.W.1 has not produced the said information before the Court. In the cross-examination, he has admitted as under:-
"M§â ªÀåQÛ M¼ÉîAiÀĪÀ£ÄÀ CxÀªÁ PÉlÖªÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀwæPÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁdPÉÌ w½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁzÀgÉ ¤¦8(J)zÀ°è G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹gÀĪÀ ±À§ÞQÌAvÀ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ ±À§ª Þ £À ÄÀ ß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹ ºÉüÀ®Ä ¸ÁzÀså EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¤d."
Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.4363/2008
18. When he has admitted it was possible for the Journalist to reach the general public or to inform the general public about the plaintiff through better words, in spite of that defendant No.1 has used the words as above. So it discloses defendant No.1 has used the said words only with an intention to defame the plaintiff. Further, in the cross-examination he has specifically admitted he has not at all personally collected information with regard to social work carrying out by the plaintiff through Niranthara Seva Samsthe. Further, he has admitted he has documents to show that plaintiff is a rowdy and he is collecting amount by threatening to the others. If that being the case, it is not clear why he has not produced any document before the Court. Further, he has admitted prior to publication of Ex.P.8, he has approached the plaintiff and discussed with plaintiff. So this admission of P.W.1 probabilise the case of the plaintiff. It probabilise case f the plaintiff that first defendant has approached him just before Assembly election and demanded for ransom money to write about the plaintiff however, he has refused to pay money to the first defendant. In the cross-examination, D.W.2 though denied that he has demanded for ransom money to write about the plaintiff but he has admitted after announcing the election, he has visited the house of the plaintiff and he has discussed with the plaintiff with regard to publication of Ex.P.8. When such being the admission of D.W.2 without any hesitation it can be held it probabilise the Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.4363/2008 case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 with an intention blackmail the plaintiff has published defamatory article Ex.P.8(a). D.W.2 also admitted in Ex.P.15 it has published as under:-
"J£ï.Dgï. PÁ¯ÉÆäAiÀÄ M§â C«ªÉÃQ ¥ÀÅqÁj §qÀ§qÁ¬Ä¹zÀ JAzÀÄ §gÉAiÀįÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¤d."
Admittedly, an article with regard to T.R. Shamanna published in Ex.P.15. Though an article was published in Ex.P.15 with regard to T.R. Shamanna but name of the reporter has not mentioned in the bottom of the said article. D.W.2 has admitted that no name of the reporter is mentioned below the article published in Ex.P.15. These are the admissions of D.W.2 helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issue Nos.1 to 3 only against defendant No.1.
19. As I have discussed above, though P.W.1 cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence. In the cross- examination of P.W.1, it has suggested to P.W.1 first defendant has approached the ward people of N.R. Colony before publishing the article marked as per Ex.P.8(a). If really defendant No.1 has approached the ward people of N.R. Colony and if really he has obtained information about the character of the plaintiff from the people of the said area, it is not clear why defendant No.1 has not adduced evidence of any independent Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.4363/2008 witnesses to resist the claim of the plaintiff. Viewed
from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that evidence of P.W.1 and documents produced by the plaintiff are helpful to the case of the plaintiff to prove Issues 1 to 3 against defendant No.1. No doubt defendant No.1 has produced documents which are marked as per Exs.D.19 to D.26. Those documents are not helpful to the case of the defendant to resist the claim of the plaintiff. In fact, those documents produced by defendant No.1 in order to establish questioned magazine printed by defendant No.2.
20. Now, this Court has to see whether second defendant is a printer of the said publication. Admittedly, defendant No.2 has taken specific contention he is not at all printer of the magazine which contains questioned article. In order to prove the contents of written statement, defendant No.2 himself examined as D.W.1. In his evidence, he has specifically deposed that Rashtrothana Mudranalaya is run by Trust called as "Rashtrothana Mudranalaya Trust". He deposed newspaper containing alleged defamatory article written and published by the first defendant was never printed in the press of this defendant. Further, he has deposed first defendant has played fraud on them by falsely representing the said magazine is printed at their press while the fact is that no such magazine was printed at their press. Further, he has deposed that first defendant has committed criminal Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.4363/2008 offence against them and after receipt of the summons, he had verified all the records maintained by their press and found that no order for printing is placed by the first defendant with them for printing the said newspaper and there is no record to that effect in their press. Further, he has deposed that mostly they print education journals, research magazines, philosophical books. However, if any member of the public places any order for printing books, the same is accepted but procedure is followed. An order form has to be placed, delivery challans will be recorded. No such documents exists in the records of their press for having printed the said magazine of the first defendant. P.W.1 further deposed that first defendant continued printing article against the plaintiff even after the institution of this case but used the name of the press fraudulently. He has deposed first defendant continued misusing their name thereby tarnishing their image and played fraud on them. He has deposed he has approached the Commissioner of Police at that juncture and registered a Criminal Case against defendant No.1. Lastly he has deposed that whenever an order is placed for printing, they do not go into its contents. They just merely print the articles and do not go to the nature and authenticity or truthfulness of the contents.
21. With the above said deposition, defendant No.2 has produced in all six documents which are marked as per Exs.D.1 to D.6. Ex.D.1 is copy of the Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.4363/2008 F.I.R. registered against defendant No.1 by the P.S.I., Kempegowda Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Ex.D.2 is the copy of plaint filed by defendant No.2 against defendant No.1 dated 30-10-2008 wherein he has specifically stated with regard to fraud, forgery played by J.H. Anil Kumar, Publisher of Naa Kanda Bengaluru. In the plaint, he has specifically stated they checked their records and found questioned newspaper is not printed in their press. So it is clear J.H. Anil Kumar has played fraud against defendant No.2. D.W.1 has also produced print out of Sales Register marked as per Ex.D.3, order form for the period from 20-06-2008 to 21-07-2008 marked as per Ex.D.4, order form (ten books) for the period from 21-07-2008 to 01-09-2008 and notice issued by the police marked as per Ex.D.6. These are the documents helpful to the case of the defendant to prove that defendant No.2 is not a printer of the magazine which contains defamatory article. Though D.W.1 cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence. No doubt in the cross-examination, D.W.1 has admitted he has not maintained documents prior 2003 but it is not a ground to reject the entire testimony of D.W.1. No doubt D.W.1 in the cross-examination has admitted defendant No.1 has obtained permission from the Assistant Commissioner, South Division on the ground that he is intending to publish magazine in the printing press belonging to him. Even this admission not fatal to Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.4363/2008 the case of defendant No.2 because it is a declaration submitted by defendant No.1 before the Assistant Commissioner, South Division without the knowledge of defendant No.2. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, defendant No.1 has confronted documents which are marked as per Exs.D.7 to D.18. Admittedly, Exs.D.7 to D.18 are the Delivery Note, Bill of Sale, Tax Invoices. In the cross-examination, D.W.2 being owner of the magazine has clearly admitted Ex.D.7 to D.18 are the documents pertaining to the year 2006-2008 and not pertaining to the period of 2008. Admittedly, questioned magazine printed in the year 2008. Therefore, confrontation of the documents by defendant No.1 to D.W.1 also not helpful to the case of defendant No.1 to resist the claim of defendant No.2. Even in the cross-examination, D.W.2 has specifically admitted defendant No.2 has lodged false complaint against him for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of I.P.C. He has also admitted in Ex.P.8 it has printed Magazine printed in the Printing Press of defendant No.2. When defendant No.1 has not produced any piece of document to show that the questioned magazine printed in the printing press of defendant No.2 and on the contrary when defendant No.2 has produced relevant records in order to establish questioned magazine has not been printed in his printing press, without any hesitation it is to be held defendant No.1 has played fraud against defendant No.2 also with an intention to defame dignity of the plaintiff in the society.
Cont'd..
- 23 - O.S. No.4363/2008
22. No doubt D.W.2 in the chief-examination has reiterated the averments of the written statement. No doubt in his evidence he has taken contention questioned article was published based on the public opinion information and material collected by the first defendant but he has not established the above said aspect. No doubt D.W.2 has produced documents which are marked as per Exs.D.19 to D.26, i.e., copy of the plaint of O.S. No.6391/2004, copy of the valuation slip, copy of the I.A., copy of the declaration form and copy of the registration. Those documents are not helpful to the case of the defendant No.1 to resist the claim of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. As per Exs.D.19 to D.21, it discloses one A.P. Mahesh has filed a suit against plaintiff and others for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property. Merely because A.P. Mahesh has filed a suit against plaintiff and others for relief of permanent injunction as per Exs.D.19 to D.21 is not a ground to accept the version of defendant No.1. As I have discussed above, Exs.D.22 to D.25 are the declaration form submitted to the competent authority by defendant No.1. Admittedly, Exs.D.22 to D.25 do not bear the signature of defendant No.2. Hence, defendant No.1 has failed to establish the questioned magazine printed in the printing press of defendant No.2.
23. At the time of arguments, Advocate for the plaintiff has vehemently argued and relied on the Cont'd..
- 24 - O.S. No.4363/2008 decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay reported in AIR 1985 BOMBAY 285 in the case between Ragheshyam Tiwari and Eknath Dinaji Bhiwapurkar and others. In the above said decision, Hon'ble High Court held the dictum when publications were positively defamatory and the editor failed to satisfy by cogent and convincing evidence that he can be protected under any of the defences of jurisdiction of truth, fair comment and qualified privilege, it is to be held publications were mala fide. In the present case also, when the questioned article positively defamatory, defendant No.1 has failed to satisfy by cogent convincing evidence that he can be protected under any of the above said defences. Hence, principles laid down in the above said decision is exactly applicable to the case on hand. Viewed from any angle, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has proved Issues Nos.1 to 3 against defendant No.1 and plaintiff has failed to prove above said issues against defendant No.2. Hence, my answer to above points are in the Partly affirmative.
24. ISSUE No.4 : Since plaintiff has proved Issue Nos.1 to 3 against defendant No.1 certainly plaintiff is entitled for the relief of damages as prayed against defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 published false baseless and defamatory article in his magazine against plaintiff. As I have discussed above, plaintiff being a respectable citizen in the society he is having his own reputation and image in the society. As the article Cont'd..
- 25 - O.S. No.4363/2008 published by the defendant is baseless and defamatory definitely it harmed the reputation of the plaintiff. Consequence of the said act of the defendants which is illegal, definitely damaged the reputation of the plaintiff as well as caused grief or annoyance of the plaintiff personally. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of damages from defendant No.1. At this juncture I would likely to rely the decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4163 in a case B.M. Thimmaiah -versus- T.M. Rukmini and others. In my considered view principle laid in above said decision is applicable to case on hand.
25. In the suit, plaintiff has sought for damages of Rs.1,00,000-00 because of illegal act of the defendant in publishing false and baseless defamatory article. Plaintiff has not shown basis for claiming damages at the rate of Rs.1,00,000-00. However, keeping in view the position and status of the plaintiff in the society, nature of the defamation committed by the defendant, conduct of the defendant in not coming forward to tender an apology and taking into consideration defendant No.1 has also played fraud on defendant No.2, it appears just and reasonable to award damages of Rs.50,000-00 to the plaintiff payable by defendant No.1. Hence, my answer to Issue No.4 is partly in the affirmative.
26. ISSUE No.5 : In the present suit plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Cont'd..
- 26 - O.S. No.4363/2008 defendant from either uttering or writing or publishing or circulating any other defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff or his family members. In the cross-examination, D.W.2 has admitted as under:-
"PÉlÖ ±À§Þ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹zÀgÉ M§â ªÀåQÛUÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀºÁ¤AiÀiÁUÀÄvÀz Û É D PÁgÀt PÉlÖ ±À§Þ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹ M§â ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ §UÉÎ §gÉAiÀĨÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ DzÀÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉãÀÆ vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è."
When this being the admission of D.W.2 certainly plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against defendant No.1. When defendant No.2 has not at all printed the questioned defamatory article in his printing press, granting of permanent injunction against defendant No.2 does not arise. Hence, my answer to Issue No.5 is partly in the affirmative.
27. ISSUE No.6 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER
Suit filed by the plaintiff against
defendant No.2 for the relief of damages and for relief of permanent injunction is hereby dismissed.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant No.1 for relief of damages and for Cont'd..
- 27 - O.S. No.4363/2008 relief of permanent injunction is hereby decreed with cost.
Defendant No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000-00 as damages to the plaintiff within one month from today.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum, of Rs.50,000-000 from defendant No.1 as damages.
Defendant No.1 is hereby restrained from either uttering or writing or publishing or circulating any other defamatory statements concerning plaintiff or his family members by way of permanent injunction.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 10th day of June, 2016.) (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
- 28 - O.S. No.4363/2008
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : G.R. Murali 06-01-2012
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Brochure of Niranthara Seva Samsthe.
Ex.P.2 : Invitation card.
Ex.P.3 : Invitation.
Ex.P.4 : Vijaya Karnataka News paper dated
25-08-2008.
Ex.P.5 : Prajavani News paper dated 25-08-2008.
Ex.P.6 : Sanje Vani News paper dated 23-08-2008.
Ex.P.7 : Samyuktha Karnataka News paper dated
24-08-2008.
Ex.P.8 : Naa Kanda Bengaluru newspaper dated
03-07-2008;
Exs.P.8(a) : Relevant pages.
and 8(b)
Ex.P.9 : Naa Kanda Bengaluru newspaper dated
28-08-2008;
Ex.P.9(a) : Relevant page.
Ex.P.10 : Registration certificate.
Ex.P.11 : Letter dated 30-04-2004.
Ex.P.12 : Form-B.
Ex.P.13 : Soveneer of Niranthara Seva Samsthe.
Ex.P.14 : Photographs printed in Soveneer.
Ex.P.15 : Naa Kanda Bengaluru dated28-08-2008.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : K.S. Narayana 06-09-2012
D.W.2 : J.H. Anil Kumar 12-02-2014
Cont'd..
- 29 - O.S. No.4363/2008
4.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Copy of the F.I.R. Ex.D.2 : Copy of plaint filed by defendant No.2
against defendant No.1 dated 30-10-2008.
Ex.D.3 : Prints out of Sales Register from 20-06-2008 to 31-08-2008.
Ex.D.4 : Order forms from 20-06-2008 to 21-07-2008.
Ex.D.5 : Order forms from 21-07-2008 to 01-09-2008.
Exs.D.7 to : Delivery notes, receipts, etc. D.18 Ex.D.19 : Certified copy of plaint of O.S. No.6391/2004.
Ex.D.20 : Certified copy of valuation slip of O.S. No.6391/2004.
Ex.D.21 : Certified copy of I.A. under Section 482(1)(a) of Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act read with Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ex.D.22 : Copy of declaration form.
Ex.D.23 : Declaration regarding news magazine.
Ex.D.24 : Declaration form.
Ex.D.25 : Fresh declaration regarding change of
Printing Press.
Ex.D.26 : Certificate of registration dated
19-03-2009.
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..