SURAJ NARAIN Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal from a decree of the learned civil Judge of Fatehpur which affirmed a decree of the learned Munsif of that district. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 1100 as damages for defamation. It appears that the defendant, who is a Tahsildar, attached certain property of the tenants of the plaintiff's master. The plaintiff who is an agent of a leading zamindar of Patehpur presented an application to the Collector of the district praying that the defendant be ordered to have the rent due to the zamindar paid out of the attached property and that the Government revenue be adjusted by taking into account the rents payable by the tenants whose property was attached. It is alleged that the defendant was very much enraged by the conduct of the plaintiff; that on 10th May 1935 when the plaintiff was present outside the Khajua tahsil Court room the defendant called him and said: That you have presented an application to the Collector to have your Government revenue adjusted. By this you have not been able to remove one hair of my jax.

(2.) The plaintiff referring to the above remarks stated in paras. 6 and 7 of the plaint as follows: (6) That the words quoted above were highly insulting and had the effect of degrading the plaintiff in the eyes of others and were used maliciously with the object of causing humiliation and pain to the plaintiff. (7) That the words quoted above and the occasion on which they were used make them highly defamatory and the plaintiff has suffered greatly in reputation and esteem and mental pain and injury have been caused to him. The plaintiff has also suffered heavy damages.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant on a variety of grounds. It was pleaded inter alia that the words attributed to the defendant were never uttered by him; that the plaintiff did not suffer any damages; that the suit was barred by the Judicial Officers Protection Act; that the words alleged to have been uttered were not defamatory; that the words said to have been used were never uttered maliciously and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages. Several issues were struck by the learned Munsif. He however on the application of the defendant decided to dispose of Issue 4 before recording evidence for the parties. Issue 4 was decided against the plaintiff and the decision of the trial Court was affirmed by the learned District Judge on appeal. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the words complained of, if used, were no doubt highly insulting and must have caused much mental pain to the plaintiff, but they were not legally actionable. In arriving at this conclusion the learned District Judge followed Girish Chunder Mitter V/s. Jatadhari Sado Khan (1899) 26 Cal. 653 which held that Damages are not recoverable for mental distress alone caused to the plaintiff by slanderous words conveying insult.