MOHAMMAD SAMIULLAH KHAN Vs. BISHU NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal from the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated 30 September 1924, dismissing his suit for damages against Bishunath, defendant, founded upon certain defamatory statements made by the defendant against the plaintiff. The plaintiff belongs to a respectable family and is a man of substance. The defendant is a tenant in the plaintiff's zamindari. Strained relations had existed between the parties for some time. The defendant had addressed a petition to the District Magistrate of Fatehpur through his son-in-law, Mukatdhari, on 9 February 1922. This has been marked as Ex. 1 of the Munsif's record. A second petition was addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Khakraitu through the same son-in-law and on the same date. This has been marked as Ex. 2. These petitions contained a number of serious imputations against the plaintiff. A Sub- Inspector, Faruq Ahmad, was deputed to investigate into the matter. During the progress of the investigation a third petition was submitted by the defendant and delivered to the investigating officer on 21 February 1922. This was signed by the defendant Bishunath and also by Mukatdhari. This document has been marked as Ex. 14.

(2.) I have been told that all the three petitions contained in substance the same imputations. The learned Munsif has reproduced in his judgment the contents of Ex. 14: All these persons (Samiullah Khan and others) rushed up to my house, six of them got at my door and some to my well, and from both the sides some got up to my house, got hold of my son-in-law, twisted his hand and snatched away six gold mohars from his person and delivered them to Samiullah Khan and persons who were present at my door, set fire to my house and threw brick bats and took away my son-in-law fastened in a rope.... I charge them for extortion and forcibly taking of gold mohars and wrongfully imprisoning and taking my son-in-law.

(3.) The three petitions, one after the other, illustrated the attitude of the defendant. His action was deliberate and determined, so that he might be sure of his victim without any possibility of missfire.