AYYASWAMI IYER Vs. ANNAN THIRUMALA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been convicted of defamation. It was found and petitioners did not deny, that they, as executive members of the Shevapet Sowrashtra Sabha, communicated to other local Sabhas reports of the nature of Ex. A, filed in this case, in which it is stated that a complaint had been received that one K. Narasimha Iyer said that Anan Thirumalai Iyer P.W. 1, had been born to Putta Venkata Subbayya, and that he, while an infant, was rolled up in a mat and thrown; that the sabha met accused and under their orders a servant was sent to bring P.W. 1, and on his report that P.W. 1 could not come, they considered the matter and decided that P.W. 1 should be removed from the community, and that that had accordingly been done.

(2.) The lower Courts have found that this report was defamatory of P.W. 1 and was not privileged. It is argued in revision that the lower appellate Court has based its confirming Judgment on mistakes of fact and that both Courts had fundamentally erred in their conception of what would constitute malice in law.

(3.) There have been for some time two rival Sourashtra Sabhas in Shevapet, the accuseds Sabha having seceded from the local Shevapet Sabha, because it would not conform to the ruling, of the main assembly allowing the reinstatement in caste of a member who had gone to England and returned. The accused upheld the ruling of the main assembly. The original Sabha headed by P. Ws. 2 and 3 refuse to recognise it. Since the secession, evidently, each branch has claimed to be the proper caste tribunal for Shevapet. In December 1920, the accuseds Sabha excommunicated P.W. 1 as set out in Ex. A. In April 1921, the rival Sabha excommunicated accused 1, 3 4 and 5. By Ex. IV on 14-8-1922, P.W. 2 and others of his Sabha communicated the excommunication of accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 to the very same parties to whom Ex. A was sent. Ex. A was sent to these parties on 4- 9-1922.