S GURUSAMY REDDIAR Vs. R PURUSHOTHAMA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeals have been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, questioning the correctness of the Judgment and decree, dated 20.09.2005, passed by the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S. Nos.6 and 7 of 2005, whereby, the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Panrutti, in O.S. Nos.94 and 132 of 1999 on 29.09.2004, dismissing the individual suits filed by the plaintiffs claiming compensation/damages from the defendant on the ground of defamation, came to be confirmed.

(2.) FOR better understanding and appreciation of the case and cause, the factual background in which the lis was initiated by the unsuccessful plaintiffs is necessarily to be re-capitulated particularly in regard to the claim of the respective plaintiffs/appellants that they individually suffered defamation by the act of the defendant/respondent.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, by referring to the alleged words of defamation mentioned in the reply notice sent by the defendant on 03.03.1999 viz., the real mischief-monger is Gurusamy Reddiar; only after Gurusamy Reddiar started poking his nose in the family of Dr.Jayachandran and the defendant, the trouble started; Gurusamy Reddiar had been engaging hooligans and setting up politicians to take forceful possession of the properties from the defendant; Gurusamy Reddiar is bent upon spoiling the family reputation without understanding that he is spoiling the reputation of his own son-in-law, Dr.Jayachandran through his father-in-law attempted to take the law in his own hands and take forceful possession of the properties without recourse to court of law and Dr.Jayachandran is not entitled to set up his father-in-law and his children for doing the unlawful activities by setting up hooligans to wrest possession from him; strenuously argued that even a bare reading of the remarks made in the reply notice against the plaintiffs would ordinarily give an impression to a person of even average logic and understanding that the plaintiffs, who are people of reputation with high esteem in the eyes of society, are indulging in unlawful activities over a property dispute. When no one would tolerate to hear somebody calling him 'mischief-monger' which term refers to one who deliberately stirs up trouble or instigates quarrels/enmity, Gurusamy Reddiar, a famous person in his locality commanding good reputation, suffered much mental agony and torture as he was portrayed in the reply notice of the defendant as a person causing disruption in the family ties. Apart from imputing him as an individual who is involved with something in a contemptible way, the defendant defamed his own brother by stating that he had set up the father-in-law to indulge in unlawful activities for taking the property. As the projection made by the defendant about the plaintiffs in the reply notice resulted in mental agony since both the plaintiffs are renowned personalities in their respective localities in terms of honour, esteem, position they hold and the profession/business they embraced to, the element of defamation is very much present to proceed against the defendant, however, both the courts below approached the issue totally in a different way, thereby, the plaintiffs suffered great injustice. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Courts below ought to have put the burden on the defendant to prove and establish that there was no malice on his part to defame and tarnish the reputation of both the plaintiffs, and by wrongly referring to the provisions in the Indian Penal Code, the plaintiffs were unjustly non-suited. The basic concept much highlighted before both the courts below that a word, although is not defamatory, but expressed with a malicious intention to defame, then the person is liable to be proceeded against for defamation, was conveniently omitted from consideration.