MAKHANLAL LOLARAM Vs. PANCHAMLAL SHEOPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is for defamation. The plaintiff is the editor of a monthly magazine called the "Parwar Bandhu." The first defendant is the editor of a rival weekly publication called the "Jain Gazette". The second defendant is its publisher and printer, while the third defendant is its proprietor. The fourth defendant is the writer of an article in one of its issues (Ex. P-1), which the plaintiff complains is defamatory of him.

(2.) THE defence is a plea of accord and satisfaction. The parties all belong to the same sect of Jains. On 9th July 1928 there was a meeting of some of the leading Parwars of Jubbulpore who endeavoured to negotiate an amicable settlement of the action which the plaintiff was evidently then contemplating. The finding of both the Courts is that the plaintiff was prepared to accept an apology in the terms of a draft agreed upon at that meeting, provided it was duly published in the Jain Gazette.

(3.) THE apology eventually appeared in an issue of the Jain Gazette about three weeks after the meeting. The lower appellate Court has held that this operated as an accord and satisfaction so far as the first three defendants are concerned, but not as against the fourth. Accordingly the claim was dismissed against them, but decreed against the fourth to the extent of Rs. 1,000.