NADIRSHAW HORMUSJI SUKHIA Vs. PIROJSHAW RATANJI RATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit, out of which this appeal - arises, was an action for damages for libel instituted by the appellant Nadirshaw Sukhia, a veterinary surgeon, against the three defendants, the first of whom, Phiroz Ruttonji Ratnagar was a frequent contributor to the columns of a daily newspaper called the Jam-e-Jamshed, published in Gujarati in Bombay, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are its proprietor and editor and printer and publisher, respectively. All the parties belong to the Parsi Zoroastrian community. The libel complained of is contained in a letter written by the first defendant and publish, ed in the Jam-e-Jamshed of the 26th of January 1911. That libel was charged as containing two distinct imputations on the character of the appellant, first, that he had obtained the privilege of being called on to move or second propositions at the meetings of the Parsi Anjuman by sending to the trustees of the Parsi Panchayet, who convened those meetings, threats that if he were not allowed to move or second the propositions he would create disturbance at the meetings, and, secondly, that the appellant had boasted in certain lectures delivered by him of being a greater friend of the late Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, the 4th Parsi Baronet of that name, than he really had been.

(2.) The pleas advanced in defence by the three defendants were that the statements in the letter charged as defamatory were not libellous, that, if they were, they were justified as being true in substance and in fact, that they were protected by privilege, and that they were fair comment on a matter of public interest.

(3.) The action was tried by Beaman J., who held that the words complained of were defamatory, that the defendants had failed on the pleas of justification, privilege, and fair comment; but he awarded one rupee as damages to the appellant and ordered each party to bear his own costs upon the ground that "the published charge, having regard to what Dr. Sukhia had told us of himself and his mental attitude towards his opponents in public life," did not express "anything which would materially injure or lower his reputation as a public man by the statement that he threatened Sir Jamsetjee that if not allowed to speak r he would create a disturbance".