ARUMUGA MUDALIAR Vs. ANNAMALAI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit is one for damages of Rs. 500 against the defendant for having defamed the plaintiff by writing the letter Exhibit A -I, dated 5th May, 1958 and publishing it The Courts below find that the matter complained of is highly defamatory to the plaintiff, but that there has been no publication and it is on the latter ground that the suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif and the dismissal was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal. The contention of the appellant's learned Counsel Sri Jagadisa Iyer before me is that there has been publication. That is a question of fact and no reasons have been shown to justify interference under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, with that finding.

(2.) THE facts necessary for our purpose may be briefly stated. The plaintiff was a co -trustee of two temples along with the defendant and was directed to hand over charge of the articles to the defendant on resignation of his office of trusteeship. There were some differences between the plaintiff and the defendant in that connection, and when the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant, the defendant replied by means of Exhibit A -1 wherein he accused the plaintiff of being a bachelor of highly immoral character and state that he had been put to shame by being beaten with broomstick and filth thrown on his head and that further the plaintiff was a mean -minded man. The letter Exhibit A -I was mostly in the handwriting of one Viswanatha Mudaliar. But there are some corrections made by the defendant and the letter has been signed by the defendant. The defendant, like the plaintiff, was a resident of Nedungal, however, the means adopted by the defendant of sending Exhibit A -I to the plaintiff was to send it by registered post addressed to the plaintiff as ex -trustee at Nedungal -vide cover Exhibit A -2. It so happened, however, according to the plaintiff, that when the postman brought the letter on 7th May, 1958 the plaintiff was not in his house and had gone to the house of his uncle's son Muniswamy Mudaliar who had died just that day in the same village. The plaintiff was preparing a list of the articles to be purchased in connection with the funeral ceremonies. The plaintiff would have it that the defendant who was standing in his house opposite pointed the plaintiff to the postman and the postman1 delivered the letter to the plaintiff when there were a number of persons present nearby. Since the letter was addressed to him as ex -trustee, the plaintiff thought that the letter would only relate to the differences between him and the defendant over the temple, and the plaintiff did not suspect that it would contain any defamatory matter. So, he asked witness Arumuga Mudaliar (P.W. 1) to read the letter though the plaintiff was a literate and could read it himself. P.W. 1 read the letter and stopped at the defamatory portion. But P.W. 1 encouraged him to read on, and it was read fully. The people present there laughed. This was on 7th May, 1958.

(3.) THE defence was that Viswanatha Mudaliar was solely responsible for the letter, that the defendant had asked Viswanatha Mudaliar not to post the letter till the defendant had consulted an Advocate at Arni, but in collusion with the plaintiff Viswanatha Mudaliar had posted the same. The defendant denied that he pointed the plaintiff to the postman.