MAROTI SADASHIV Vs. GODUBAI NARAYANRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for damages for defamation against the defendants. The plaintiff is the widow of one Narayan who was the adopted son of Bhanudas Narayan died in the year 1943, leaving behind him his own widow and the adoptive mother Bainabai, defendant no. 1. The second defendant is Bainabai's sister and defendants nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of the second defendant. Defendant no. 5 is the brother of Bainabai. Defendants nos. 6 to 10 are stated to be the friends of defendant nos. 3 to 5. Now, the defamation alleged against the several defendants was that defendant no. 10 made an anonymous application to the District Superintendent of Police which contained the defamatory words that "the plaintiff was pregnant. " This application was enquired into and statements were recorded by the police at Daporj on 29-4-1930. The application was read to the plaintiff in the presence of other persons. The plaintiff, however, stated that the application was in the handwriting of the 10th defendant, though it was not signed by him. Defendant no. 9 made an anonymous application on 3rd May 1950 to the District Superintendent of Police, Amravati, and other police authorities. This application also, according to the plaintiff, contained defamatory words against her. It was stated in the application that the plaintiff was pregnant and that the plaintiff caused forcible miscarriage of a child and concealed the birth of that child. The plaintiff stated that defendant no. 3 sent two applications respectively on 26th June 1950 and 19th July, 1950 to the District Superintendent of Police, Amravati, containing false and defamatory statements that one Bapurao was the cause of the plaintiff's pregnancy and the plaintiff absconded with Bapurao to cause forcible miscarriage. The plaintiff further stated that during the investigation which started upon the said application defendants 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 also made similar statements before the police authorities.

(2.) SO far as defendant no. 5 is concerned, the plaintiffs case was that he published a notice in the local newspaper 'udaya' dated 25th July 1950 on the instructions and on behalf of the first defendant. The notice which was published in the newspaper mentioned that the plaintiffs character was not good, that the plaintiff was morally defamed, that she became pregnant by illegitimate connection, that in order to cause forcible miscarriage she absconded from the village, and that she had thus brought disgrace to her family. A copy of this notice was got served by defendant no. 5 upon Bapurao who received it on 3rd August, 1950. Bapurao thereafter showed this notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has contended that all these statements in the notice as also those made before the Police officers were malicious and caused her immeasurable harm.

(3.) IT was further stated by the plaintiff that defendant no. 7 made two applications on 22nd September 1950 under the false signature of one Vinayak Balkrishna Pande to the District Superintendent of Police, Amravati. These two applications also contained defamatory words to the effect that the plaintiff caused forcible miscarriage at Dhaman-gaon, tahsil Chandur.