HIRABAI JEHANGIR MISTRY Vs. DINSHAW EDULJI KARKARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by a married woman for slander. The only defence now subsisting, is that without proof of special damage the suit is not maintainable. Admittedly, no special damage is shown. Accordingly, the defence raises an important and interesting question of law, and has led to the able arguments of counsel ranging over a wide field. At the outset I should make it clear that the lady has already vindicated her honour. She has prosecuted the defendant under Secs.499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation, and he has been convicted by a criminal Court and fined Rs. 50 or in default to suffer one month's imprisonment. His application to the High Court in revision was rejected. The only question is, whether in addition the -plaintiff can recover damages in a civil suit. Her claim is for Rs. 10,000.

(2.) The facts are shortly as follows : The parties are all Parsis, and occupied different flats in the same building, the plaintiff and her husband and a relative named Jamshedji occupying one flat, and the defendant another flat. A quarrel arose and the defendant brought criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and her husband, and Jamshedji, and a servant, for assault and insult. At the hearing on July 14, 1921, the Magistrate tried to settle the case, and asked the parties to state their grievances. He, accordingly, asked the defendant who Jamshedji was, and received in reply the irrelevant and defamatory statement now complained of, viz., he (meaning thereby the said Jamshedji) is-the kept paramour of the Bai (meaning thereby the plaintiff and) I will prove that.

(3.) This was apparently said deliberately and not in the heat or excitement of the moment; for when the plaintiff instituted criminal proceedings on August 5, 1921, the defendant's pleader at the outset told the Magistrate that he was going to prove that the words complained of were true in substance and in fact. Subsequently, other counsels prevailed, and, eventually, an unqualified apology was offered, which, under the circumstances, was not accepted. An offer in Court on November 24,1925, of Rs. 1,000 in full settlement without costs was refused by the plaintiff.