LAWS(PVC)-1936-8-63

RAGHUNATH SINGH PARMAR Vs. MUKANDI LAL

Decided On August 05, 1936
RAGHUNATH SINGH PARMAR Appellant
V/S
MUKANDI LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's first appeal arising out of a suit to recover damages. The facts of the case which gave rise to this appeal, can briefly be stated as follows: Mr. Mukandi Lal, plaintiff, and Sardar Bahadur Narain Singh were rival candidates from Garhwal constitutency for a seat in the local Legislative Council in 1930. The election took place on 27 September 1930. The result was that Sardar Bahadur Narain Singh was successful. On or about 13 September 1930, a leaflet styled "yellow leaflet" was handed over by Mr. Raghunath Singh Parmar, a son-in-law of Sardar Bahadur Narain Singh, to a press in Landsdowne for publication. The plaintiff-respondent alleged that this yellow leaflet Ex. P-l contained libellous statements against him, and because of those statements which are specified in the plaint he had been lowered in the estimation of the public and, therefore, he instituted a suit against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages. The defendant in his defence denied that he had published the yellow leaflet and pleaded that in the matter of the printing of this leaflet he had merely acted as a messenger on behalf of the office of Sardar Bahadur Narain Singh and, therefore, he could not be held responsible for the matters mentioned in the leaflet. It was further denied that the pamphlet was defamatory. The defendant also pleaded that as the plaintiff had accepted an apology from Sardar Bahadur Narain Singh in respect of the statements contained in the yellow leaflet there was an accord and satisfaction and the plaintiff could not proceed against one of the joint tort-feasors after an acceptance of an apology from Sardar Bahadur Narain Singh. The defendant also pleaded that the statements contained in the offending leaflet came within the purview of "fair comments on matters of public interest" and they were privileged. Another plea taken by the defendant was that the statements in the yellow leaflet Ex. P-l were made by way of reply to libellous statements made by the plaintiff or his helpers, and, therefore, were not actionable.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence produced in the case established that there was a publication of the leaflet by the defendant and that some of the statements in that leaflet were libellous. He rejected the pleas taken by the defendant in defence. The learned Judge, therefore, gave a decree to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 8,000 against the defendant. The defendant is dissatisfied with the decree made against him and has preferred this appeal. Before we proceed further, we would like to mention here that Mr. Mukandi Lal is a Barrister-at-law practising as an Advocate of this Court in Garhwal since 1919. He was twice elected to the U.P. Legislative Council. Before his last defeat, he was a member of the Council from 1923 to September 1930. For several years he acted as Deputy President of the local Legislative Council. Mr. Raghunath Singh Parmar is also holding a respectable position in life. He is a Barrister-at-law of several years standing and a fairly big zamindar and, as stated above, he is a son-in-law of Sardar Bahadur Narain Singh.

(3.) One of the questions about which the parties were at issue was as to whether or not the defendant had been responsible for the publication of the leaflet Ex. P-l. The position taken up by the defendant in his written statement was that he had merely handed over the leaflet to the Lansdowne Press but that he was not responsible for the statements mentioned therein. On the question of publication the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the evidence conclusively proves that the defendant had it published, and it is further found that he was seen distributing it. A good deal of time was spent in the Court below in proving this allegation, but before us learned Counsel appearing for the defendant has not attempted to challenge the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on this question, and it must, therefore, be held that the defendant got this leaflet Ex. P-l published.