LAWS(RAJ)-1958-2-40

RAMDAS Vs. RAJA

Decided On February 25, 1958
RAMDAS Appellant
V/S
RAJA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff Ramdas and others in a suit for damages for defamation.

(2.) THE plaintiff was the Pujari of Shri Raghu-nathji's temple in village Sanwatra at all material times. The defendants arc residents of that village. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants made an application on Posh Vadi 11 Smt. 1998 to the mehkma Khas of the State of Mewar, as it then was, and later during the course of an enquiry emanating from that application gave statements before the Assistant settlement Officer on 3-5-1945, in which they stated that the plaintiff was not a man of good character, that he did not perform the worship of the temple regularly or properly, that when he was being asked to perform the worship properly he assumed an attitude of aggression and behaved violently, that he had blocked the way to the temple and that he also beat the 'gwalas', both women and men, when they brought firewood from the jungle, and, therefore, he was not fit to be allowed to continue as Pujari of the temple. The plaintiff's contention was that all these allegations were false and defamatory, and, therefore, he claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 500/- from the defendants. This suit was brought on 5-2-1947.

(3.) THE defendants admitted that they had made an application to the Mehkma khas of the former State of Udaipur that the plaintiff being the Pujari of the temple was not performing the worship regularly or properly, and that the plaintiff was in the habit of acting violently whenever he was reminded of his duties; but they contended that whatever they had done, they did in the performance of their duty as they were interested in the proper worship of the temple of the village and that the complaint against the plaintiff was true in fact and substance. The Munsif rajsamand who tried the suit decreed it and awarded damages in favour of the plaintiff as claimed. The defendants then went in appeal and the learned Civil judge, Udaipur, before whom the appeal came for disposal, dismissed the suit. The present appeal has been filed from the aforesaid judgment and decree.