SODHI GURBACHAN SINGH KOSHAN Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SODHI gurbachan Singh, petitioner, was the Editor, printer and publisher of an under weekly named 'sach'. This paper was published from Ludhiana. Shakti parshad of village Sangat Pura Sodhian, respondent No. 2, was the representative of this paper at Sirhind. Baboo ram of Hussain Pura, respndent NO. 1, approach shakti Parshad and informed him that the Tahsildar at Sirhind had, while disposing of evacuee property, situate in villag ehussain Pura, made a lot of money by accepting more amounts from bidders and issuing receipts for lesser amounts to them. He gave his own example and stated that he had paid Rs. 250/- for one of such properties and the receipts issued to him was for Rs. 50/- only. On 31-51961, baboo Ram dictated this news to Shakti Parshad and then put his signatures on the manuscript. On enquiry from the former whether that news was correct, the latter was informed that was so. Shakti Parshad then sent this news item to sodhi Gurbachan Singh for publication in his paper. This news was then published in the issue of 24th of June 1961. Translated in English, it read as under:

(2.) THE suit was contested by Baboo Ram, who pleaded that he had not given any letter to Shakti Parshad for publication in the newspaper. His case was that Shakti parshad wrote a lease deed in his presence saying that he was giving his agaricultural laand to one Hazura Singh, Harijan, on lease and on that paper his signatures had been obtained by Shakti Parshad.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed: 1. Whether the contents of letter dated 31-5-1961 were not dictated by baboo Ram and he signed it considering it to be a lease deed, and if so what is its effect? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 500/- as damages? on Issue No. 1, the trial Judge came to the conclusion that the contents of the letter dated 31-5-1961 were dictated by Baboo ram, who had not signed the same considering it to be a lease deed. On the other hand, he dictated the news to Shakti Parshad for publication in the newspaper. Under issue NO. 2, the finding was that the act of Baboo Ram in supplying wrong news was wrongful and due to that wrongful act, the plaintiff had to pay Rs. 500/- as fine. Such a wrongful act, according to the learned Judge, gave rise to a legal remedy in the shape of a suit for damages. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to claim Rs. 500/- from Baboo ram. On these findings the suit was decreed for Rupees 500/- with costs against baboo Ram.