P V NAGANATHA SASTRI Vs. NPSUBRAMANIA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected appeals arise out of the same suit brought by the plaintiff, a leading Vakil of the Tanjore bar, for the recovery of Rs. 2,000 for damages for the libel contained in a letter sent to the Madras Standard by the Defendant and published hi that paper on the 22nd August 1912 The letter is marked as Ex. A in the case. The District Munsif awarded Rs. 500 damages and full costs. Both sides appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal reduced the damages to Rs. 10 but awarded full costs to the plaintiff in the defendant s appeal and dismissed the plaintiff s appeal without costs. In the defendant s Second Appeal No. 1349 of 1915 Mr. G.S. Ramachandra Aiyar argues that only the last 11 lines of Exhibit A were intended by him to refer to the plaintiff and that even as regards the matter contained in those 11 lines his letter amounts to a fair comment bona fide upon the plaintiff s conduct as vakil putting forward arguments in a particular mode in a case conducted by him and that therefore he is not liable, in law, to the plaintiff for such comments.

(2.) I think the question whether the whole of the writing or any part of that writing would be construed by an ordinary reader to refer to plaintiff is a question of fact which in English courts would be left to a jury, and where the jury arrives at their verdict on this particular point through a misconstruction of the writing read as a whole or through other circumstances appearing in the case, that verdict is a verdict upon a question of fact. While therefore I am of opinion that the Subordinate Judge in arriving at his conclusion that the first portion of the letter Exhibit A would not be read by an ordinary newspaper reader as referring to the plaintiff, did so through a construction of the letter which according to legal canons of construction was wholly unjustified, I am unable to hold that his finding as to the implication that would be put by an ordinary newspaper reader on that portion of the letter A, (that is whether it referred to the plaintiff or not) is not a question of fact but one of law and is therefore open to be questioned in Second Appeal.

(3.) As regards the remaining portions (that is, the last 11 lines) they clearly accuse Mr. Naganatha Sastri of the six faults, numbered 1 to 6 in the next previous portion, and also of sophistry. The defendant in his own evidence admits that Mr. Naganatha Sastri was not guilty, in the conduct of the case, of five of the above seven faults. If, however, an ordinary reader would read the document as charging Mr. Naganatha Sastri with these five faults also, then, the defendant is clearly guilty of libel. The defendant s appeal therefore must be dismissed with costs.