Dismissed

Potnuru Srihari Rao v. Baratam Subba Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2023AS/106/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed an appeal filed by an appellant against an O.S. decree in a defamation suit, confirming the trial court's finding that the appellant failed to prove malice or damage to his reputation as the alleged defamatory notice was not shown to any third party.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Senior Civil Judge confirmed; no order as to costs.

Potnuru Srihari Rao Vs Baratam Subba Rao — Andhra Pradesh HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE j PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS * FIRST APPEAL NO: 106 OF 2007

¶2

Between:

¶3

Potnuru Srihari Rao, S/o Late Venkanna, Aged 56 years, R/o. D.No. 15-29/A, Satya Durga Engineer, Police Station Road, Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram Dist

¶4

...APPELLANT

¶5

AND

¶6

Baratam Subba Rao, Adopted S/o Late China Satyanarayana, Aged 37 years. Business R/o Satya Durga agencies. Police Station Road, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram Dist.

¶7

Gembali Surya Rao, S/o Late Gurunadhaswamy, Aged about 34 years R/o Satya Durga agencies. Police Station Road, Parvathipuram’ Vizianagaram Dist.

¶8

Gembali Sarojanamma, W/o Late Gurunadhaswamy, aged about 66 years, Satya Durga agencies. Police Station Road, Parvathipuram Vizianagaram Dist.

¶9

^ ^ ^ . ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶10

oo oo Under Section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgement^{andDecreeDated} 28.03.2006 in O.S. No. 55 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the senior Civil Judge Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. ’

¶11

In Original Suit/Original Petition No. 106 of 2007

¶12

appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgement and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Ravi Shankar for the Appellant and of Sri K.A. Narasimham for the Respondents.

¶13

This Court doth order and decree:

¶14

That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

¶15

That the Judgement dated 28.03.2006 in O.S. No. 55 of 2004 passed by the learned senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram be and is hereby confirmed.

¶16

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

SD/- M. RAMESH BABU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. (With Record if any) 2. Three CD Copies PRK

/ /

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/12/2023

DECREE

AS.No.106 of 2007

yiA
9i^

OF AW
m
g 3 0 APP 202^ Os
Current iJenti&n
'A.
o. IS-.O
S-PAICV^

¶31

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶33

TUESDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶34

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶37

FIRST APPEAL NO: 106 OF 2007

¶38

OR Judgement and Decree Dated 28.03.2006 in O.S. No. 55 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the senior Civil Judge. Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. Between: DurgaPotnuruEngineer.Srihari Rao,PoliceS/oStationLate Venkanna,Road. PaA/ahpuram.Aged 56 yearsVizianagaramR/o D No^Dist 15-29/A ’ Satva^

...APPELLANT

AND

ylaff"’Businels’^R°/n^t,?S'' n° Safyanarayana, Aged &ip:rarViziaXa?aTDist°^

¶43

SajyaGembaHDurgaSuryaagertces.Rao, S/oPoliceLate Gurunadhaswamy,Station Road, ParvathipurarfI:Aged about 34Vizidnagaramyears R/o

¶44

W/o Late Gurunadhaswamy, aged about 66 years

¶45

Sgya Durga agencies. Police Station Road, PanrathipurL SSianaglram

¶46

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶47

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. A RAVI SHANKAR

¶48

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K A NARASIMHAM

¶49

The Court made the following:

¶50

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶51

APPEAL SUIT No. 106 of 2007

¶52

JUDGMENT:

¶53

This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed against the decree and judgment dated 28.03.2006 in O.S.No.55 of 2004 on the file of the^Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvatipuram.

¶54

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter^are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

¶55

The plaintiff herein is the plaintiff and the defendants herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

¶56

The plaintiff instituted the suit for damages of Rs.8,00,000/- for the malicious conduct of the defendants.

¶57

Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial^Court,itis necessary to narrate the pleadings pleaded by the parties.

¶58

As per the averments made in the plaint, the brief^caseof the plaintiff, is as follows:

¶59

(1) The wife of the plaintiff is the sister of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and daughter of 3'"'^ defendant. The defendant

¶60

Nos.1 and 2 are the grand-children and defendant No.3 is

¶61

¶62

daughter of late Baratam China Satyanarayana, who is a successful businessman in Parvathipuram. The plaintiff was working in Telecom service at several places in different capacities and he is leading a respectable^lifein the society, even though he belongs to a business community. (ii) While so, due to illegal contact with one Bompada Manikyamma, the said Satayanarayana neglected his legally wedded wife by name Ammayamma and her only daughter i.e., defendant No.3 herein. His assets depleted during the period 1970-1974. The said China Satyanarayana died in the year, 1982. The court litigation between said B.Manikyamma and wife of China Satyanarayana was ended after the settlement. (iii) As there was no male assistance, the plaintiff looked after the entire court proceedings. The plaintiff started a business establishment under the name and style of ‘Satya Durga Agencies’ keeping the 1^^ defendant^asin charge as he was working in Telecom Department at

¶63

¶64

various places. Since 1976, the plaintiff and defendants were living under one roof, (iv) Due to family disputes between the plaintiff and defendants, they entered into a settlement deed dated 04.03.2001 styled as Kutumba Pampakam Jabita(partition list) and it was executed on 10.03.2001.

¶65

(V) The defendants sent a notice dated 31.10.2003 duly signed by them attributing malafides and utter falsehood to the reputation of character of the plaintiff stating^that the plaintiff was interrogated by Parvathipuram Town^P.S. with regard to the suspicious death of wife of one^Venkata Nageswara Rao and in order to get out of the said murder, the plaintiff spent an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is actually helped and financed by defendants, (vi) This imputation by the defendants to the plaintiff integrity and reputation is venomous and purposefully aimed at harming the reputation of the plaintiff. The defendants have no scruples and do not stop at printing false accusations and are prepared to any extent to damage the reputation of the plaintiff and his family

¶66

¶67

members. A case in Crime No. 17 of 2004 on the file of Parvatfpuram Police Station, Vizianagaram District, which swas registered basing on the complaint dated 01.03.2004 of the 1^^ defendant i.e.Baratam Subbarao against the wife of plaintiff and the plaintiff under Sections 420 and 468 l.RC. was dismissed as not pressed since they decided to pursue their remedies in the civil Court. (VII) since the defendants proclaimed i n the village that the plaintiff will be punished with i imprisonment, several people asked him about it and he has suffered mentally and physically. The damage caused by the defendants In both verbal and in writing was affected his reputation in the eye of public. The defendants are guilty of malicious propaganda and false accusations and the conduct of the defendants not only venomous but also cruel. Thus, the conduct of the defendants has caused injury to the reputation and feelings of the plaintiff family. 7. The defendants filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and further stating as follows:

¶68

¶69

(i) The defendants are not guilty of any libel and slander in their conduct against the plaintiff either^verbal or in writing. The plaintiff, on his own accord, withdrew the two cases filed against them,

¶70

(ii) The defendants are not guilty of any malicious conduct and the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages^as claimed in the suit. The plaintiff, with an intention to grab the properties and their business fabricated and created the partition list and another settlement deed dated 04.03.2001 and as the defendants did not consent for execution of those documents, the plaintiff got^filed the suit. The suit is filed only to wreck vengeance against the defendants as they are behaving independently and refused to be under the thumb of the plaintiff and be slaves to him. The suit is filed only to terrorize and blackmail the defendants. The defendants are not liable to pay any damages and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶71

Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled^the following issues for trial:

¶72

¶73

Whether the defendants are guilty of libel and slander i n their conduct against the plaintiff either verbal or in writing?

¶74

Whether the defendants are guilty of any malicious

¶75

conduct and the plaintiff is entitled to any damages as claimed in the suit?

¶76

Whether there is no cause of action to the plaintiff for

¶77

filing this suit?

¶78

To what relief?

¶79

At the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced.

¶80

Basing on the material and evidence, trial Court came to conclusion that since the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged malicious conduct on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any damages and there is no cause of action to file suit and dismissed the suit.

¶81

It is against this decree and judgment, the plaintiff preferred this appeal.

¶82

¶83

Heard Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri K.A.Narasimham, learned^counselfor the respondents/defendants. 13. Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the allegations made^inEx.A.2- notice proved malafide intention of the defendants^toattribute murder of Nageswarao’s wife to the plaintiff; that^onthesaid murder, the police interrogated not only the plaintiff^butalsoall the family members including defendants; the findings^ofthe trial Court are erroneous and thereby prays to allow^theappeal, 14. Sri K.A.Narasimham learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances, material on record, rightly dismissed the suit; that there are no grounds^tointerfere with the judgment of the trial Court and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶84

It is against this backdrop, the following points^arisefor determination:

¶85

Whether the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2006 in O.S.No.55 of 2004 passed by the learned Senior

¶86

¶87

Civil Judge, Parvatipuram, is liable to be set aside? If so, to what extent? 2. To what relief ?

¶88

POINT Nos.1 and 2:

¶89

In order to answer the said points, the following points have to be determined;

¶90

1. Whether the statement of the defendants in Ex.A2legal notice dated 31.10.2003 amounts to ‘defamation’;

¶91

1. The said statement harms the reputation of the

¶92

plaintiff or his entity.

¶93

1. Such statement is a false and whether such false statement is communicated to a third party resulting the plaintiff being defamed; and

¶94

The defendants acted making such statement negligently or with actually malice (knowingly making a false statement or with reckless disregard the truth). 17. To answer the above statements, it is kept in mind, broadly the test is whether a statement would cause one to think less of the person to whom it refers. The statement is not

¶95

¶96

a defamatory unless it is public has caused or likely^tocause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant reputation is ‘asset’ to each and everyone any damage to such asset^canbe legally dealt with a defamatory loss have been enacted to prevent the present malice used their right to freedom of speech and expression otherwise there could have been^chances of committing slander and escaping of loss that there is no routine publication of the matter.

¶97

It is also to keep in mind the presence of a defamatory statement is required. The defamatory content is one^calculate to injured reputation of a person or a class of person by exposing them to slattered, contempt or ridicule, The test whether damages reputation has been calculated from^theeyes of a common mind and the comprehension of the matter.

¶98

Secondly, the statement must purport to a person or^class of persons. It must be published either or not early^formed. Unless its content made available to show personally^itmustbe public either in oral or written form unless the content is made available to a third person there can be no defamation. Whether a letter is sent in a language unknown to a^recipienthe

¶99

¶100

needs to a third party to read it to him, any defamatory statement is made in it, it will constitute defamatory even it was sent as a private letter, seen should aid to a third person is needed to be read.

¶101

Coming to the factual aspects are concerned, one B.China Satyanarayana was a leading personality in a business community in Parvatipuram. The defendant by name G.Sarojanamma is only daughter of said B.China Satyanarayana. The 1“ defendant by name B.Subbarao, the 2"" defendant by name G.Surya Rao and wife of the plaintiff by name Kalyani are children of the 3'^'^ defendant by name G.Sarojanamma W/o late Gurunadhaswamy.

¶102

It is found from the record that B.China Satyanarayana adopted B.Subba Rao, though he has son of G.Sarojanamma and G.Sarojanamma also blessed with a female child by name Kalyani, who is none other than wife of plaintiff. 22. There are disputes between the plaintiff and defendants. The disputes went to an extent of making complaints to the police and the same were settled before Lok Adalat by way of settlement. A notice was said to have been sent by defendants

¶103

¶104

on 31.10.2003 as a reply said to be sent by the plaintiff^videhis letter dated 12.10.2003.

¶105

Admittedly, the said letter addressed by the plaintiff was not placed on record either before this Court or before^thetrial Court.

¶106

the contents of the 24. This plaint/suit is filed basing on notice dated 31.10.2003 said to be sent by defendant^Nos.1to 3 to the plaintiff and in the middle of the letter,^therewasa recital, which is as follows;

¶107

We used to help you financially in crisis and we have your family for your spent Rs.30,00,000/on maintenance, education of your three daughters and marriage of your eldest daughter. With regard to Venkata Nageswara Rao’s wife’s death as the death is have been taken into custody by the suspicious, you Parvatipuram Town police and in order to get out of^the murder case you have spent an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/which is actually helped and financed by^us.

¶108

The above sentences according to the plaintiff, harmed to his reputation.

¶109

¶110

¶111

Now, to what extent the plaintiff is able to prove^thatthe above sentences made harm to the reputation of the plaintiff and said harm was liquidated to a damage of Rs.3,00,000/as claimed by the plaintiff. 26. The plaintiff, who was examined as PW.1 narrated the plaint pleadings in his chief examination. In the cross examination, he admitted that defendant Nos.1 and 2 got another brother by name Nageswara Rao, who was working^asa teacher and the wife of said Nageswara Rao was one Sandhya Rani; that he has not filed any documents to show that he got established business of defendants with his contributions as is mentioned in the pleadings as well in the chief examination. He had not filed any documents relating to agreements or any partition list in the suit. He issued notices for share in the property as well in the shop rooms. The defendants issued a reply notice denying his claim. On the death of wife of Nageswara Rao, Parvathipuram Town Police registered^acrime as suspicious death. At that time police called himself,^hiswife an^ the defendants and other brother of defendants^forenquiry and after enquiry, police left them and asked to go away.

¶112

¶113

PW.1 in his cross examination categorically made the

¶114

following statement:

¶115

“/ have not shown the Ex.A2 to anybody in my village. No persons from my village came to me and questioned and asked me as 1 have not shown the notice to anybody^or not stated to any body. It is true before filing of^the suit, I cannot given any notice to the defendants. It is true after this incident I performed my daughter’s marriage with an Engineer. It is also true that after^this incident I constructed a building worth of Rs.6,00,000/-. It is true that one of my daughters was sent to London and the witness voluntarily says that she was send^by company”.

¶116

So, the so called notice covered under Ex.A2 was not shown to anybody nor anybody questioned him. When plaintiff seeking damages, he must made out the alleged damage^caused to him by way of notice said to be sent by the defendants. It is also necessarily prove by the plaintiff to show that^there is a defamatory content in Ex.A2-notice, which injured the reputation of the plaintiff or ridicule him rather such defamatory statement calculated from the eyes of a^common map, his reputation was lost. \

¶117

¶118

Normally and almost universally, the practice in a civil suit for defamation is a prior Solicitor's letter demanding damage or apology or both. It is a normal, natural and conventional part of the civil law and procedure of defamation. In strict law the Solicitor's demand is not a condition precedent for a suit for defamation claiming damages, but it is only a natural and appropriate step to take to notify a person that he will be faced with a suit for damage for a particular amount unless he apologises or unless he does certain things. In the absence of such a notice, the question of motive and question of cost in a suit for damage may become important. No such notice is requisite under our law. It is, however, always advisable to give the defendants an opportunity before filing a suit. Such a notice will help to show that the plaintiff with a real object is to vindicate his character and not merely to make money^outof the attack. 30. In Ashoke Kumar Sarkar v. Radha Kanto Pandey\ in which Calcutta High Court held that a refusal to withdraw and express regret for statements that are without foundation is a

¶119

AIR 1967 Cal 178

¶120

¶121

matter which the jury may take into consideration in assessing damages. And, if the reply to the demand for an apology^bea letter of abuse or reiteration of the charge, such letter will materially strengthen the plaintiffs case if malice^isanissuein the action. This is the commonsense justification of the universal practice of Solicitor's letter of demand before filing a civil suit for damages for defamation. 31. In Kamta Prasad v. Ram Agyan^, a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, make the proposition clear that^ifthere is a demand for the withdrawal of certain words or expressions used in a pending proceeding coupled with a threat^thataction will be taken if the words or expressions used are not withdrawn, then if the words or expressions were scandalous. unnecessary or irrelevant, such a threat does not amount to interference with the administration of justice, on^theobvious ground that the Civil Procedure Code makes ample provisions for striking off scandalous pleadings.

7 /

AIR 1952 M 674

In Naottamdas L. Shah v. Patel Masabhai Revabhai\ Gujarat High Court held that the term "reputation means, "what is generally said or believed about the persons or things' character". The two terms "character" and reputation" are prone to be confused. Character, in the context, would mean. fortitude or moral constitution or strength of a person. It has no relevance with the belief or opinion of others in respect to a person. Therefore, character is what a person "actually is", while "reputation" is what neighbours and others say^"whathe is". The man may have, in fact, a good character and yet suffer from bad reputation or vice versa. In short, 'reputation' is, what is reputed about, that is to say, common knowledge or general opinion in respect to a person. It is the estimation in which a person is hold by others and not the opinion which^hehimself may have about himself. It may be said that 'reputation' is a composite hearsay, being the community’s opinion, which implies the definite and final formation of belief by the community. By no stretch of reasoning the term 'reputation'^can impl;^ ones own belief about himself.

¶126

^ 1984 CrI.L.J. 1790

¶127

¶128

So, from the above judgment, it is clear that ‘reputation’ is what neighbours and others say ‘what he is’, Therefore, when plaintiff claims that his reputation is gone or^damagedin the eyes of public, he should place material in that^regard. In the present case, he categorically stated in the evidence^that he has not shown the said notice to anybody nor any person of his village and questioned him about the letter said to be written by the defendants.

¶129

Thus, in all, the plaintiff could not able to prove^theguilt of libel and slander against the plaintiff as well^theplaintiff could not place any material that there was any malifide conduct on the part of the defendants to make such^contentin Ex.A2-notice since PW.1 himself stated that the contents^of Ex.A2 were not in the knowledge of anybody and those^were not got published or exhibited in anywhere, damage^topersons reputation by way of false public statement and same is admitted by the plaintiff himself as well as he has^admitted none were seen the notice. When police interrogated the plaintiff with regard to the suspicious murder of wife of Nageswara Rao, it is found from the record that the^plaintiff

¶130

¶131

¶132

himself admitted that he applied for anticipatory bail to prevent the arrest and in those circumstances Ex.A2 -notice was given as a reply to his letter and even in Ex.A2-notice does not find place of spending of the amount for criminal case nor arrest of the plaintiff thereby no evidence to show his reputation got damaged. 35. It is the settled law that onus on the plaintiff to prove that malafide allegations made against him that was without any reasonable or probable cause and with a malafide intention sent to him. In the absence, there is neither malafide nor defamation, and those are not found in the case of the plaintiff, is not entitled for damages and that the plaintiff himself unable to establish that there was damage to his reputation by way of content in Ex.A2-notice and in the absence of the same, this Court could not find any merit to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 36. This Court closely verified the evidence as well as the judgment passed by the trial Court, which is in line with the law established and identified any flaw in the judgment nor appreciating the evidence of the witnesses by the trial court.

¶133

¶134

In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion^thatthere

¶135

are no merits and the appeal suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶136

Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming^the judgment dated 28.03.2006 in O.S.No.55 of 2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvatipuram. There shall be no

¶137

order as to costs.

¶138