HIRABAI JEHANGIR MISTRI Vs. DINSHAW EDULJI KARKARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit came on for hearing on November 20, and issues were raised and some evidence was recorded. The suit then stood adjourned to November 21, and on that day the Advocate-General appeared for the defendant and stated that one defence only was raised, viz., that the suit was not maintainable. At the same time he reiterated the offer of Rs. 1,000 in full settlement which had been made at the first hearing but this the plaintiff declined to accept unless defendant undertook to pay her costs.

(2.) In the circumstances it is only necessary to deal with the pleadings so far as the question of the maintainability of the suit. The action is one for slander, and it must be taken that the allegations in the plaint are established and that the defendant did use the words set out in para 5 of the plaint. There is now no question of privilege or of any other defence than that already set out, and the only further question which can arise is as to the quantum of damages.

(3.) The point taken is shortly as follows : The law to be applied is the English common law together with such statute law as is applicable. Under the English common law an action for slander cannot be maintained without proof of special damage. No special damage is proved. The case is not within any of the exceptions to the general rule. Adultery in the case of a woman is not a crime, and the Slander of Women Act 1891 (54 & -55 Vic. Cap. 21) is not in force in India. That is the substance of the argument and it requires examination.