Delhi District Court
Uzma Sajid vs Kisshan Chand Rathi on 21 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Presided by : Ms. Vandana
Suit No. 12267/2016
Unique ID No. : DLCT01-000722-2013
In the matter of:
Mst. Uzma Sajid,
Wife of Mohd. Sajid,
D/o late Sheikh Mohd. Younus,
R/o 988, Haveli Hissamuddin Haider,
Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006. ..............Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Kishan Chand Rathi
S/o late Sh. Sunder Lal Rathi,
Shop no. 1206, Chandni Chowk
Delhi-110006. ..........Defendant
Date of institution : 02.04.2013
Date of Reserving judgment : 21.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 21.09.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,00,000/- being damages alongwith pendente lite and future interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff belongs to a Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 1 out of 16 very reputed business family who are associated with sale/purchase and export / import of readymade garments and Carpets etc. and consequent to which, they have acquired extensive business experience in this field and have generated a lot of goodwill among the business fraternity. It has been stated that father of plaintiff Sh. Sheikh Mohd. Younus (since deceased), was the owner of the properties bearing nos. 1204 to 1207, Chandni Chowk,Delhi-110006, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 17.04.1971 executed by Ms. Hajra Bi.
2.2 It has been stated further that prior to the death of the father of the plaintiff, her father had executed his last Will and Testament dated 22.08.1999 bequeathing the property bearing Municipal no. VI/1204 to 1207, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 in favour of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the above said properties. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of DRC Act against the defendant and after receiving the summons of eviction petition by the defendant, the defendant filed an application under section 25B of DRC Act for grant of leave to defend.
2.3 The plaintiff has further stated that in sub-para of para no. 21 at page no. 3 of the application filed by the defendant for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition of the plaintiff, the defendant alleged as under:-
Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 2 out of 16'-- As alleged by the said claimant of the title of the suit property, Sheikh Mohd. Younus at the time of his death left behind only one son i.e. Sheikh Mohd. Illyas as his only legal heirs and representative as his wife had already predeceased him. Apart from Sheikh Mohd. Illyas, Sheikh Mohd. Younus left behind no other legal heirs and representatives. The petitioner Mst. Uzma Sajid is not the daughter of Sheikh Mohd. Younus as alleged by her and she has no right, title or interest in any portion of the entire suit property in the capacity of owner.--' 2.4 Plaintiff further stated that the imputations mentioned in the application as well as in the affidavit show that the imputations directly injured the prestige and reputation of the plaintiff and lower the moral and intellectual character of her in the estimation of others.
It has been stated further that it has become difficult for the plaintiff to accommodate several guests and to explain to everyone of them that imputations levelled against her are false and malicious and she is the daughter of Sheikh Mohd. Younus. It has been further stated that children of the plaintiff had to face many difficulties to go to the school and play in the neighbourhood and her family is unable to live with respect and dignity due to false malacious and imputations levelled against the plaintiff.
Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 3 out of 162.5 Being aggrieved, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 7 lacs for damages caused to her for the loss of reputation, character & credit and for the inconvenience, annoyance, mental and physical pain, monetarily loss and anxiety. But despite having received the legal notice, the defendant remained fail to make the payment. Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking the relief of a decree of damages of Rs. 7,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith pendent elite and future interest.
3. WRITTEN STATEMENT 3.1 Detailed Written Statement was filed denying all the allegations of the plaintiff's averments stated in the plaint. It was stated that the plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of the submissions made in the eviction petition, which is still subjudice.
3.2 It has been further stated that defendant never intended to defame or demoralize the plaintiff at any point of time and the same is apparent from the fact that the plaintiffs have not given even a single name of any person to whom the alleged copies were allegedly given by the defendant. Further, it has been stated that the defendant never intended and never used any defamatory or loose words against the plaintiff in his leave to defend application and affidavit in the said eviction petition or otherwise in the public as repeatedly alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. It has been further stated that the defendant has Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 4 out of 16 not made any false or malicious imputations against the plaintiff, therefore, the question of causing any damage to the reputation of the plaintiff or his alleged family members does not arise. Rest all the allegations made in the plaint were denied in toto.
4. REPLICATION 4.1 Vide replication, all the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and the submissions made in WS were denied.
5. FRAMING OF ISSUES 5.1 On 09.09.2014, on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff was defamed by the defendant vide leave to defend application dated 02.04.2012 filed in eviction petition E-37/2012 ? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
7,00,000/- on account of loss of reputation /character/ annoyance/mental pain etc. as mentioned in para 19 of the plaint ?
OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If so, at what
rate and for what period ? OPP
(iv) Relief.
Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 5 out of 16
6. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6.1 In support of her case, the plaintiff examined herself as
PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/AA. She relied upon the following documents to prove her case:-
(i) Ex. PW1/A (colly) (OSR) are the copies of Income Tax Returns.
(ii) Ex. PW1/B (OSR) is copy of sale deed dated 17.04.1971.
(iii) Ex. PW1/C (OSR) is copy of rent receipt (objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant as to the mode of proof)
(iv) Ex.PW1/D (OSR) is copy of Will and testament dated 22.08.1999 (objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant as to the mode of proof)
(v) Ex. PW1/E (colly) (OSR) are documentary proof of relevant documents showing daughter of Sheikh Mohd.
Younus.
6.2 PW-1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the plaintiff, the PE was closed vide order dated 18.07.2022.
7. DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE 7.1 In support of his case, the defendant examined himself as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon the documents to prove his case i.e. Ex. DW1/1 i.e. Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 6 out of 16 legal notice dated 22.05.2012 and DW1/2 i.e. reply dated 08.06.2012. He also relied upon the documents which have already been exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1 i.e. certified copy of judgment and Ex. PW1/D2 i.e. certified copy of the decree sheet.
7.2 DW1/defendant was cross-examined at length. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the defendant, the Defendant's evidence was closed vide order dated 27.05.2024.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the record carefully.
9. OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-
10. ISSUE NO. (i) Whether the plaintiff was defamed by the defendant vide leave to defend application dated 02.04.2012 filed in eviction petition E-37/2012 ? OPP & ISSUE NO. (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of loss of reputation /character/ annoyance/mental pain etc. as mentioned in para 19 of the plaint ? OPP & ISSUE NO. (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 7 out of 16 10.1 I shall decide all the above said issues together being connected one.
10.2 A man's reputation is his property. The objective of law of defamation is to protect one's reputation, honor, integrity, character and dignity in the society. Defamation is intentional false communication, act of publication of defamatory content, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation, or induces disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
10.3 Every person is entitled to his good name and to the esteem in which he is held by others, and has a right to claim that his reputation shall not be disparaged by defamatory statements made about him to a third person or persons without a lawful justification or excuse.
10.4 Defamation may be committed in two ways viz; (i) speech, or (ii) by writing and equivalent modes. The English common law describes the former as Slander and the latter as Libel. The claim of slander and libel are private legal remedies, the object of which is to vindicate the claimant's reputation.
Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 8 out of 1610.5 There are, in general, three essentials of the tort of defamation-
a. There must be a defamatory statement.
b. There must be publication of the same.
c. Proof of special damage.
With the proof of publication of defamatory material, plaintiff must be deemed to have established his case unless the defendant pleads either of the defences open to him, which are-
a. justification of truth. b. fair and bona fide comment. c. absolute privilege. d. consent. e. Apology.
10.6 The very first essential of the offense of defamation is that the statement must be defamatory i.e. which tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff. The test to check if a particular statement is defamatory or not will depend upon how the right thinking members of society are likely to take it.
10.7 Reverting to the facts in hand, the stand of the plaintiff is that the defendant in leave to defend application under section 25-B of DRC Act, 1958 has stated that the plaintiff is not the daughter of late Sheikh Mohd. Younus, though she is the real daughter of late Sheikh Mohd. Younus.
Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 9 out of 1610.8 On the other hand, the defendant has taken the plea that after filing of the leave application by the defendant in the said eviction petition, the plaintiff through her counsel served a legal notice dated 22.05.2012, wherein, the plaintiff claimed herself to be the real daughter of Sh. Sheikh Mohd. Yusuf, though, in the plaint, she is claiming herself to be the daughter of Sheikh Mohd. Younus. Therefore, the plaintiff has been taking contrary stand at different stages.
10.9 The plaintiff has relied on the statement made by the defendant in his leave to defend application under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. However, regarding difference of surname in the father's name in legal notice dated 22.05.2012 i.e. Ex. DW1/1 (which is an admitted document), during the course of final arguments, it was explained as typographical error by the plaintiff. Therefore, the error is admitted on behalf of the plaintiff herself claiming that it is a typographical error. However, there is difference in spelling of Younus, Yunus and Yusuf. In the same legal notice at three different places, the plaintiff is mentioning three different surnames of her father and the surname Yusuf in para no. 3 of the above exhibit is in the form of self declaration. Therefore, the defendant has a right to submit reply before Court of competent jurisdiction of which notice is received by him. It is incumbent on the defendant to file his reply taking all his pleas. The defendant has filed reply on the basis of error committed by the plaintiff herself. Therefore, the statement in question Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 10 out of 16 made by the defendant is only a consequence of prior error committed by the plaintiff. If plaintiff is taking shelter under typographical error, then the same shelter is also available to the defendant.
10.10 Further, the plea of the plaintiff is that defendant could have referred in his reply such error as typographical error. The above said contention stands nowhere as how an error committed by the plaintiff could be affirmed and claimed by the defendant as typographical error when the error itself has been claimed by the plaintiff. Hence, it cannot be said that the defendant has made a defamatory statement against the plaintiff.
10.11 Now coming to the second consideration i.e. publication. The defamatory statement must be published. Submitting reply in legal proceedings by parties against each other is not a publication as such, but it is a privileged statement. The said statement is not available to parties other than parties to the litigation. The said statement is privileged statement which was so laid down in Pandey Surendra Nath Sinha v. Bageshwari Pd. AIR 1961 Pat 164 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the law on defamation in full length. The court observed as under:
"A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers; which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 11 out of 16 generally and in particular to cause him to be shunned or avoided or regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business. Defamation, therefore, is the wrong done by a person to another's reputation by words, signs, or visible representations.
A wrong of defamation, as such, consists in the publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning another person without lawful justification. The word 'defamation' is the generic name for the wrong; libel and slander are particular forms of it. Defamation, therefore, is of two kinds, namely, libel and slander. In libel the defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form in writing or otherwise recorded, such as, printing, typing, pictures, photographs, caricatures, effigies. In slander the defamatory statement or representation is expressed by speech or its equivalents, that is, in some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such as, a nod, wink, smile, hissing, the finger-language of the deaf and dumb, gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds.Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 12 out of 16
The actions of libel and slander are thus private legal remedies, the object of which is to make reparation for the private injury done by wrongful publication to a third person or persons of defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff. The defendant in these actions may prove the truth of the defamatory matter and thus show that the plaintiff has received no injury. For though there may be damage accruing from the publication, yet, if the facts published are true, the law gives no remedy by action.
In an action for libel the plaintiff should prove that the statement complained of (1) refers to him; (2) is in writing, (3) is defamatory, and, (4) was published by the defendant to a third person or persons."
13. Deciding the issue whether statements made to the lawful authorities can be made ground for defamation, in the case of Pandey Surendra Nath V. Bageshwari Pd. (supra), it was observed that "If a person who makes the statements has an interest or duty, legal, social or moral to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is so made has as corresponding interest or duty to receive it such statement commands a privilege and cannot be made basis of an action for Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 13 out of 16 defamation."
16. Same has been held in the case of Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad v. Durdana Zamir, 2009 (109) DRJ 357 , wherein it was observed that:-
"Whenever a person makes a complaint against someone to the lawful authorities and in that complaint he makes imputations against the person complained of, it cannot be considered that the person has publicized or publically made defamatory averments against a person. If a prosecution is initiated against the person on the basis of such averments and the person is acquitted holding that the complaint was false, then only a cause of action arises against the complainant for launching a case for false prosecution or for damages on other grounds. Until and unless a competent court holds that complaint was false, no cause of action arises. Approaching a competent authority and praying that the authority should come to the rescue of the complainant and prevent the interference of the plaintiff (in the family affairs of the defendant) cannot amount to defamatory imputation per-se and even if it is published, it does not tend to show that the defendant had tend to show that the defendant had intended to lower the reputation of the Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 14 out of 16 plaintiff."
10.12 Since the above statement is privileged statement and there was no publication as such in a litigation between the parties, therefore, the defendant is entitled to protection of such privileged statement made bonafide by him on such declaration of plaintiff at para no. 3 of her legal notice i.e. Ex. DW1/1.
10.13 Further, the plaintiff has not even any person, to whom the defendant distributed the above statement, which can be said to be publication.
10.14 Apart from the above, regarding the 3 rd essential i.e. proof of special damage, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence at all as to what damage was caused to her due to the abovesaid statement made by the defendant in the leave to defend. She has alleged that her children were facing difficulties in school due to this but during cross- examination, she herself admitted that, "all my children are studying well and scored good results in their respective past examination from time to time." It was further alleged by her that, she has suffered losses in her profession due to the above act of the defendant, however, during cross-examination, in contrary to above, she categorically admitted that, "my income since 2002 has gradually increased from time to time in due course of my business till date."
Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 15 out of 1610.14 Hence, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate case of defamatory statement against the defendant. Accordingly, all the issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
11. In view of my aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby stands dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally signed compliance. by VANDANA Date: VANDANA 2024.09.21 04:05:40 +0530 Pronounced in the open court (Vandana) on 21st September, 2024 DJ-08 : Central : THC :
Delhi.Suit No. 12267/2016 Page No. 16 out of 16