Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the O.S. No.4721/2024 defendants from posting any messages, mentioning the name of the plaintiff in social media including WhatsApp, Face-book, Instagram and other media platforms.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, he is the first son of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant is the 2nd son of the first defendant. The father of the plaintiff late S.N. Moorthy died on 15.07.2005 leaving behind the parties to the suit as his LRs. and the properties of the family have been shared between themselves through registered instruments. It is now the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant under the registered release deed dated 06.07.2020 has released her 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff herein in respect of the property bearing No.8, New BBMP No.9, 3rd Main road, 5th Bock, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru. However, the first defendant at the instance o the 2nd defendant has now filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act of 20076 seeking the cancellation of O.S. No.4721/2024 aforesaid release deed dated 06.07.2020 in respect of 1/3rd share released in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the said demand of the 1st defendant for cancelling the registered release deed is only to meet unjustified demands of the 2nd defendant and when the plaintiff has failed to accede to the demands of the first defendant, she has lodged a complaint with Sadashivanagar Police, Bengaluru and in this regard when the plaintiff made an inquiry, he realized that the first defendant had disowned the complaint lodged by her against the plaintiff and stated that the said complaint was without her knowledge and consequentially she has unconditionally withdrawn the said complaint. It is now the grievance of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant having realized that it is not possible for the 2nd defendant to coerce the plaintiff through the 1st defendant to obtain a registered cancellation deed in respect of the release deed, has adopted a novel approach by making the 1st defendant to send video messages on O.S. No.4721/2024 WhatsApp to the plaintiff requesting him to execute a cancellation deed. It is stated that when the plaintiff did not yield to the request of the 1st defendant, the defendants have innovatively posted video messages to Facebook making derogatory remarks on the plaintiff by stating that he has cheated and misled the 1st defendant to execute gift deed and release deed. According to the plaintiff the video messages circulating on Facebook are bald and the said messages are false and defmatory which have tarnished the image of the plaintiff in the locality. It is averred in the complaint that even though the plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to stop sending such messages, the 1st defendant has not yielded to the said request, per contra he has sent more messages to Face-book and other media just to defame the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has approached this court seeking the relief of injunction against the defendants and has prayed to decree the suit. The cause of action for the suit arose during the last week of O.S. No.4721/2024 May 2024 when the 1st defendant started posting the messages on Whatsapp.

11. It is now the grievance of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant having realized that it is not possible for the 2nd defendant to coerce the plaintiff through the 1st defendant to obtain cancellation deed in respect of the release deed, has adopted a novel approach by making the 1st defendant to send video messages on WhatsApp to the plaintiff requesting him to execute a cancellation deed. It is stated that when the plaintiff did not yield to the request of the 1st defendant, the defendants have innovatively posted video messages to Facebook making derogatory remarks on the plaintiff stating that he has cheated and misled the 1st O.S. No.4721/2024 defendant to execute gift deed and release deed. According to the plaintiff the video messages circulating on Facebook are bald and the said messages are false and defamatory which have tarnished the image of the plaintiff in the locality.

12. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.4. Ex.P.1 is a transcript of WhatsApp messages shared by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. Ex.P.2 are the printouts of Face-book posts and Ex.P.3 is the CD, Ex.P.4 is the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In so far as the documentary evidence relied at Ex.P.1 is concerned, the transcript of the message reveals that the defendant No.1 has requested the plaintiff to cancel the restraint order which is operating against the 2nd defendant; she has also sought for return of all the documents and registered gift deeds which have been given by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff in order to clear the loan. She has stated that she O.S. No.4721/2024 intends to cancel all the gift deeds given to the plaintiff and therefore, the gift deeds are necessary. The 1st defendant has requested for return of all the original documents of the property without any further delay. The whatsapp messages produced at Ex.P1 is a personal and one-on-one chat which are intended to be private. In order for a statement to be considered defamatory, it must meet several requirements;1. the statement must be false, 2. It must be communicated to a third party. i.e. someone other than the party that made the statement and the party that the statement was about, 3. It must harm the reputation of the plaintiff and 4. the defendant must have either known or should have known that the statement was false or defamatory. When it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 had circulated the whatsapp video message at Ex.P1 to third persons or in a whatsapp group , the question of defamation does not arise. Similarly, the transcript of the Face-book post at page No.19 does not O.S. No.4721/2024 refer to the plaintiff in person. The plaintiff in the plaint has not pleaded the material averments to establish that the messages on facebook post or the whatsapp video message are defamatory acts committed against the plaintiff. No specific words or imputations alleged to be defamatory are identified and pleaded in the plaint.

and "misleading" in the whatsapp message and facebook post has lowered his image and third persons have made O.S. No.4721/2024 enquires on the same. There is absolutely no references to individuals with names and particulars who have enquired with the plaintiff on the said posts. The plaintiff cannot merely rely upon on false and defamatory statements alleged to be made by the defendants. To get the statement published is another essential ingredient in constituting defamation. Here, publication does not mean giving the publicity but to make the statement known to other person than the person defamed. Therefore in the absence of material pleadings in the plaint demonstrating that the publication made by the defendants has reached the third parties and in the estimation of such other persons the image of the plaintiff has been lowered, the cause of action / right to sue against the defendants is not made out. In Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar vs Krishna Nandan Singh in Civil Appeal NO. 6760 OF 2019, the Supreme Court referring to Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Society Represented by its O.S. No.4721/2024 Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its Chairman/ Managing Trustee (2012) 8 SCC 706 and A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 the Apex court has sought to explain that the cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to seek a decree and relief against the defendant. Cause of action requires infringement of the right or breach of an obligation and comprises of all material facts on which the right and claim for breach is founded, that is, some act done by the defendant to infringe and violate the right or breach an obligation. For a right to exist, there must be a corelative duty which can be enforced in a law suit. A right cannot exist without an enforceable duty. The pleadings in the above case fail to establish violation of a statutory right which creates an enforceable right of defamation in the court of law .