V SELLADURAI Vs. N NETHAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. He filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from three defendants jointly and severally as damages on the allegation that a defamatory notice was published at the instance of Defendant No.1 in the newspaper - Daily Thanthi- belonging to Defendant No.2 of which Defendant No.3 was the Editor, Printer and Publisher.

(2.) THE allegation in the plaint is to the effect that Defendant No.1, who had offered to supervise the construction of a Guest House for the plaintiff, who is an exporter of Tamil feature films to Sri Lanka, had been given an imprest cash of Rs.3,78,000/- for purchase of materials. According to the plaintiff, Defendant No.1 was liable to refund a sum of Rs.20,000/- and when the plaintiff broached the subject, Defendant No.1 abused and assaulted the plaintiff for which he had preferred a complaint with Aranthangi Police and a case has been registered as C.C.No.1001 of 2001 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi against Defendant No.1. On 25.1.2002, Defendant No.1 out of spite and intention to injure the credit and reputation of the plaintiff, caused a publication in the Tamil daily - Daily Thanthi- containing false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. It has been further stated that publication of such notice caused mental pain and agony and had lowered reputation in the estimate of the public. THEreafter the plaintiff issued a notice dated 4.2.2002 to Defendant No.1 demanding Rs.11,00,000/- as compensation, but there was no response. Defendants 2 and 3 have printed and published irresponsibly the aforesaid publication without verifying the correctness and, therefore, they are jointly and severally liable and though the notice dated 4.2.2002 was sent to Defendant No.3, there was no response from Defendant No.3. It was further stated in the plaint that cause of action arose at Chennai where the Defendants 2 and 3 were carrying on business and where publication had been made on 25.1.2002.

(3.) THE appellant has made his submissions in person. Respondents 1 and 2 have appeared separately through their respective counsels and Respondent No.3 is admittedly dead.