Karnataka High Court
Mr. K. Vasudeva Asranna vs Mr. Vasanth Giliyar on 18 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7218
WP No. 22313 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 22313 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. K. VASUDEVA ASRANNA
S/O. LATE K. SRINIVASA ASRANNA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
2. MR. VENKATRAMANA ASRANNA
S/O. LATE K. SRINIVASA ASRANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
3. MR. SRIDEVIKUMAR ASRANNA
S/O. K. VASUDEVA ASRANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
4. MR. SRINIVASA ASRANNA
S/O. K. VENKATRAMANA ASRANNA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
5. MR. K. LAXMINARAYANA ASRANNA
S/O. K. GOPALAKRISHNA ASRANNA
Digitally AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
signed by
SUMA 6. MR. GOPALAKRISHNA ASRANNA
Location: S/O. K.K. LAXMINARAYANA ASRANNA
HIGH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
COURT
KARNATAKA
7. MR. ANANTHAPADMANABHA ASRANNA
S/O. LATE K. SADANANDA ASRANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
8. MR. KAMALADEVIPRASADA ASRANNA
S/O. LATE K. SADANANDA ASRANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
9. MR. SRIHARINARAYANADASA ASRANNA
S/O. LATE K. SADANANDA ASRANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7218
WP No. 22313 of 2023
10. MR. SRIKARA ASRANNA
S/O. ANANTHAPADMANABHA ASRANNA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
11. MR. SADANANDA ASRANNA
S/O. KAMALADEVIPRASADA ASRANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
PETITIONER NO.1 IS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF
SRI DURGAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE, KATEEL
ALL ARE THE HEREDITARY ARCHAKAS OF
SRI DURGAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE, KATEEL
D.K. ALL ARE RESIDING AT KATEEL,
MANGALORE-574148
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. VASANTH GILIYAR
S/O. SOORYANARAYANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING BEHIND BUS STAND,
AMBAGILU, GUNDMI VILLAGE
SASTANA POST-576226
2. MR. ANANTHRAJ RAO
S/O. BABU RAO
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT. PRIYADARSHINI
MAIN ROAD,
KATEEL-574148
3. MR. SANJEEVA MADIVALA
S/O. BABU MADIVALA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING NEAR HIGH SCHOOL GROUND,
KATEEL-574148.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7218
WP No. 22313 of 2023
ORDER DATED 24.08.2023 ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.93 OF 2020 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW IA NO.5 AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.93/2020 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) are before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 24.08.2023 by which, an application filed by them under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.
2. (i) The suit in O.S.No.93/2020 was filed for damages due to a defamatory article circulated by the defendants on YouTube. The plaintiffs claimed that the assertions made in the circulation were false and far from truth and intended to defame them. The plaintiffs therefore claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the defendants for damaging their reputation.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:7218 WP No. 22313 of 2023
(ii) The suit was contested by the defendants who inter alia contended that the defendant No.1 was a reporter of 'ºÁAiÀiï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ' a Kannada weekly news paper and a member of the Karnataka State Working Press Reporters Association. He was also the editor of '¤ªÀÄä C©üªÄÀ vÀ' a Kannada weekly news paper. He claimed that whatever that was posted on YouTube, if read as a whole, did not lower the reputation of the plaintiffs in the estimation of the right thinking/reasonable members of the society. He contended that his utterances in the article posted on YouTube were substantially true, just and fair and were bonafide. He specifically asserted that the utterances made in the YouTube video were neither false nor defamatory, but based on sufficient materials sourced by the defendant No.1. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest at 14% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization towards damages for having slandered and defamed the plaintiffs and their family by causing -5- NC: 2025:KHC:7218 WP No. 22313 of 2023 reputational and monitory loss with severe mental trauma?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants are intending to publish defamatory statement or photos, pictures, videos, articles relating to the plaintiffs or Asranna family or their capacity as Archakas and Trustee of Sri. Durgaparameshwari Temple, Kateel, telecasting, circulating, publishing in YouTube, Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram, Twitter, T.V. News channel, newspaper or in any other media either electronic print or otherwise concerning or in relation to the plaintiffs, their family, temple any information, matter, debate/program with intention to offend or insult or defame or ridicule the plaintiffs or harm their name/goodwill/reputation?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages as sought for?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for?
5. What Order or Decree?"
(iii) The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code suggesting an additional issue which is as follows: -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:7218 WP No. 22313 of 2023 "Whether the defendants prove that the publications caused by them as against the plaintiffs and Asranna Family are true and just?"
(iv) This application was contested by the defendants who claimed that the application was filed at a belated stage when the suit was listed for cross-examination of PW.1.
Therefore, it was not bonafide and hence, prayed that the same be dismissed in limine. They also contended that the burden to prove the issues was upon the plaintiffs and that the Trial Court had rightly framed the issues in view of the assertions made in the plaint.
(v) The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the burden of proof is upon the person who brings a claim before the Court and in the case of an actionable libel, the burden of proving malice on the part of the defendants in disseminating the incriminating article, is upon the plaintiffs. It held that the burden does not shift on the defendants, merely on account of the defendants raising a defence that the circulations were true and based on documents sourced by them.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:7218 WP No. 22313 of 2023
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that in an action for recovery of damages as compensation for causing loss of reputation, the defendants are bound to prove that the article published/circulated/posted was based on credible information and material. He contends that truth is therefore, a substantive defence for the defendants in an action for defamation. He contends that in the instant case the defendants specifically claimed that whatever that was posted in the incriminating YouTube video were all based on information collected. Thus, he contends that the defendant is bound to establish the said fact to non suit the plaintiffs. Therefore, he contends that the Trial Court ought to have framed an issue as to whether the defendants prove that the articles published by them was based on information procured lawfully.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiffs to establish that the article published by the defendants was -8- NC: 2025:KHC:7218 WP No. 22313 of 2023 defamatory and that their reputation in the eyes of general public was dented. Therefore, he contends that there is no need for a fresh issue to be framed, as the onus to prove that the articles published were based on sufficient material, would shift upon the defendants only after the plaintiffs discharged the onus of proof that the article was defamatory. Therefore, he contends that there is no need to frame an issue as suggested by the plaintiffs. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon the judgment of High Court of judicature at Madras, in the case of Pramodkumar I.P.S Vs. Mr. O. Thomas and etc., - C.S.No.595/2010 to contend that the concept of onus of proof and burden of proof are different and swings like a pendulum in each case from one end to the other.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the defendants.
7. An issue of fact or law arises when one party asserts a particular fact or law and the other party denies it or sets up a different set of facts. Issues of fact or law are framed -9- NC: 2025:KHC:7218 WP No. 22313 of 2023 to condense the controversy between the parties and guide the Court in determining the dispute.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, in an action for defamation, the plaintiffs are only expected to prove that (i) the article was defamatory; (ii) the defendants had published the defamatory article, as a result of which, the image of the plaintiffs was lowered in the minds of the general public or a group or a section of the general public. The onus would then shift to the defendants to establish that the publication caused was based on material collected through various authentic sources. Therefore, in an action for defamation truth is a defence. In this regard it is profitable to refer to the judgment of a coordinate of bench of this Court in the case of B.M.Thimmaiah Vs. Smt. T.M.Rukmini and Other - AIR 2013 KAR 81, where it was held as under:
"20. In order to establish the tort of defamation, certain essential elements are necessary. Broadly speaking, there are four essentials of the tort of defamation, They are:-
(i) There must be a defamatory statement.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7218
WP No. 22313 of 2023
(ii) The defamatory statement must be
understood by right-thinking or reasonable- minded persons as referring to the plaintiff.
(iii) There must be publication of the defamatory statement, that is to say, it must be communicated to some person other than the plaintiff himself.
(iv) In case of slander, either there must be proof of special damage or the slander must come within the serious classes of cases in which it is actionable per se.
21. In order to find out whether a statement is defamatory or not, the first rule is that the whole of the statement complained of must be read and not only a part or parts of it and it is also necessary that in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, the Court must have regard to the fact as to what the words would convey to the ordinary man. The natural and the ordinary meaning of the words which are the subject matter of defamation are the same for the lawyer and also for the layman. When the language used is derogatory, the layman reads by making implications much more freely and the law of defamation is required to take note of the same. It is not necessary, in the instant case, to deal with the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7218 WP No. 22313 of 2023 inference that a layman, having knowledge of the allegations would make, as the allegations are rather clear and direct. The test to be applied for determining the question whether a statement is defamatory is to be found from the answer to the question would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right- thinking members of society?". If the answer is yes, then it has to be held that the statement is defamatory."
9. Therefore, the Trial Court must have framed an issue "whether the defendants established that the article posted/circulated by them in the incriminating YouTube video was true and based on sufficient material and whether they had taken sufficient care to ascertain the truth before posting/circulating it."
10. The Trial Court instead of considering the application from this stand point, has treated the suit as any other suit. The Trial Court was clearly oblivious of the basic canons of law which required the defendants to establish that they were honest while publishing the incriminating article.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7218 WP No. 22313 of 2023 Hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court warrants interference.
11. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code is allowed. The issue suggested by the plaintiff is treated as additional issue No.1. The Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30