B. GANGAIAH Vs. D.P. GANGADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -respondent in Original Suit No. 494 of 1951 -52 in the Court of the First Munsiff at Bangalore, sued the appellant -defendant, in a sum of Rs. 1000/ - as damages for (1) slandering his title to the property offered as security for the loan to be granted by the State Government as per their order No. A.F. 6850/2A.H. 66 -30 -2 dated 13 -11 -1950; (2) for defaming him; and (3) for inducing the Government to cancel the loan which had been sanctioned and thereby interfering with the implementation of the contract. The trial Court decreed the suit claim as prayed for holding that the defendant had slandered the title of the plaintiff to the property offered as security for the loan proposed to be advanced by the Government and that he (defendant) induced the Government to cancel the loan which had been sanctioned. The first appellate Court while it agreed with the finding of the trial Court in all respects thought that the ends of justice will be met if a consolidated sum of Rs. 500/ - is decreed as damages. Accordingly it modified the decree of the trial Court. The defendant in this appeal has challenged the correctness of the findings of the Courts below. His learned Counsel Sri H.V. Narayana Rao, has pressed a three -fold attack against the decrees and judgments of the Courts below. They are: (1) the proved facts are not sufficient to hold that the defendant either slandered the plaintiff's title to the property offered as security or that he induced the Government to break its contract with the plaintiff; (2) when the act induced is within the right of the immediate actor (Government) and is therefore not wrongful in so far as the Government is concerned though it may be to the detriment of the plaintiff, the defendant cannot be liable unless it is shown that he had procured his object by the use of illegal means for that purpose; and (3) the act complained of cannot give rise to a decree for general damages and the evidence on record does not prove that the plaintiff has incurred any special damages.

(2.) IN order to make the points formulated above intelligible, it is necessary to tell the story of the circumstances antecedent to the incident concerned. At one time there were controversies as regards the preliminary circumstances. But these controversies have been quietened by the decisions of the Courts below and the facts found by the Courts below are as follows: The plaintiff and the defendant are cousins, their paternal grandfathers being direct brothers; there were considerable litigations between the branch of the plaintiff and the defendant; the plaintiff who is a qualified cattle breeder applied to the Government for a loan of Rs. 10,000/ - for starting a Dairy Farm in Jodi Aralasandra Village, in Nelamangala Taluk; the Government sanctioned a loan of Rs. 5,000/ - on 13 -11 -1950 on the security of his 1/5th share in the Jodi Aralasandra Village; when the security bond was about to be executed and the loan dispersed, the defendant wrote Ex. G dated 5 -1 -1951; in that letter he stated:

(3.) THERE is no doubt that the chain of events culminating in the cancellation of the proposed loan was set in motion by the defendant. There is reason to believe that it was because of Exhibit G, the authorities were induced to cancel the proposed loan. But as seen from Exhibit R, after the receipt of Ex. G, the Amildar had purported to have ascertained the relevant facts. It is not known from what source or sources he got the information that Aralasandra properties were joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendant; that there was dispute about the partition of the same and that case is pending on the file of the Sub Judge at Bangalore in respect of those properties. It is probable and likely that the Amildar merely relied on the allegations contained in Ex. G. The Deputy Commissioner appears to have revoked the sanction for the loan on the recommendation of the Amildar. That being so can the defendant be held responsible for the consequences? In support of his contention that the appellant cannot be held responsible for the Government revoking the sanction of the loan, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Parimi Chakrapani Naidu Vs. Mattapalli Venkataraju (deceased) and Anr., AIR 1938 Mad 958 . In that case it was held: