Dismissed

Sri. B.V. Seetharam v. Dr. Anand Saldanha

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023RSA/1797/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two second appeals under Section 100 of CPC. The court held that since appellants restricted their claims to quantum of damages in the first appeal, they could not re-agitate issues regarding the finding of defamation. No substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

Both Regular Second Appeals (Nos. 1797 and 1798 of 2016) and associated Interlocutory Applications are dismissed.

Sri. B.V. Seetharam Vs Dr. Anand Saldanha — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41327 RSA No. 1797 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1798 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1797 OF 2016 (RES) C/W

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1798 OF 2016 (RES)

¶8

IN RSA NO.1797/2016

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. B.V. SEETHARAM S/O LATE VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS DIRECTOR THE CHITRA PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD 400-C, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALURU-575 011

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. CLIFTON D ROZARIO, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

DR. ANAND SALDANHA S/O LATE DR.G.L.SALDANHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT GLEN VIEW LIGHT HOUSE HILL MANGALORE - 575001

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M VISHWAJITH RAI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41327 RSA No. 1797 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1798 of 2016

¶19

THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.7.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.114/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANGALURU, DK, DISMISSED AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.10 PASSED IN OS NO.244/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, MANGALURU, DK AND ETC.

¶20

IN RSA NO.1798/2016

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

SRI. B.V. SEETHARAM S/O LATE VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS DIRECTOR THE CHITRA PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD 400-C, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA MANGALURU-575 011

¶23

…APPELLANT

¶24

(BY SRI. CLIFTON D ROZARIO, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

DR. ANAND SALDANHA S/O LATE DR.G.L.SALDANHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT GLEN VIEW LIGHT HOUSE HILL MANGALORE - 575001

¶27

…RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SMT. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M VISHWAJITH RAI, ADVOCATE)

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41327 RSA No. 1797 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1798 of 2016

¶30

THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.115/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANGALURU, DK, DISMISSED AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2010 PASSED IN OS NO.243/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC, MANGALURU, DK AND ETC.

¶31

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶33

These captioned second appeals are filed by the defendant in O.S.No.243/1998 and O.S.No.244/1998, who has questioned the judgment and decree passed by both Courts, wherein the defendants in the respective suits are directed to pay damages of Rs.25,000/- each with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the ground that the article published in the newspaper against the plaintiff, who is a practicing Doctor, is defamatory.

¶34

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41327 RSA No. 1797 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1798 of 2016

¶36

3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

¶37

The present plaintiff, who is practicing Doctor, has filed three suits against the Publisher of Kannada Daily Newspaper 'Hosa Sanje' and the Editor cum Publisher of Kannada Daily Newspaper 'Karavali Ale' and English Daily Newspaper 'The Canara Times'. The suits are filed in O.S.Nos.242/1998, 243/1998 and 244/1998. In these suits, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he is serving as an Associate Professor of Community Medicine at Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore. The plaintiff also claimed that he has been teaching in the said college since eight years and is well known in his field and research works and presentation of papers. The plaintiff claimed that he has been attending conferences at various places and therefore, the plaintiff is well known in his society, his community and amongst doctors community. The plaintiff claimed that he has earned a very good reputation not only among the teaching fraternity, staff and students, but also among the public at large. The plaintiff's grievance is

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41327 RSA No. 1797 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1798 of 2016

¶39

that defendants have published defamatory article against

¶40

the plaintiff on account of death of his wife and the same gives an indication that his wife - Anitha Saldanha has committed suicide on account of frustration at the hands of the plaintiff.

¶41

The above said suits were clubbed together.

¶42

The plaintiff and defendants have let in oral and documentary evidence.

¶43

The Trial Court, while assessing the evidence

¶44

let in by the plaintiff coupled with the several statements made by the plaintiff in the cross-examination, held that the article published by the Editor has ruined reputation of the plaintiff. The Trial Court has also held that there is absolutely no rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants to demonstrate that the article published in the newspaper was based on some credential sources and the article published in the newspaper had some truth and it was a fare comment. In absence of rebuttal evidence, the Trial

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41327 RSA No. 1797 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1798 of 2016

¶46

Court held that the Editor is guilty for having spoiled the reputation of the plaintiff, who is found to be a responsible Doctor and has some credentials in the Society. Though the plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Trial Court bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the plaintiff's status in the society, decreed the suit in part by directing defendant in O.S.Nos.243/1998 and 244/1998 to pay damages to the tune of Rs.35,000/-.

¶47

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the Trial Court in the said suits, the defendant in O.S.No.243/1998 and O.S.No.244/1998 preferred independent appeals.

¶48

Before the Appellate Court, the learned

¶49

counsel appearing for the defendant restricted the claim only to the quantum determined by the Trial Court. It is in this background, the Appellate Court confined its enquiry to ascertain whether compensation awarded by the Trial

¶50

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:41327 RSA No. 1797 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1798 of 2016

¶51

Court warrants any interference. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court was also of the view that the plaintiff is a highly respectable person in the society and referring to the plaintiff's conduct, his position and standing in the society and on account of irreparable damage that has caused to his reputation, however, declined to interfere with the quantum arrived at by the Trial Court while awarding damages to the plaintiff. Consequently, both appeals are dismissed.

¶52

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶53

defendant and learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Perused the findings recorded by both Courts.

¶54

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that if defendant has restricted his claim only to the quantum, he cannot be permitted in the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC to re-agitate and question the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the defendant was found to be guilty in publishing articles,

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41327 RSA No. 1797 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1798 of 2016

¶56

which were found to be defamatory. If the defendant has restricted his claim to the quantum, then I am of the view that no indulgence is warranted at the hands of this Court to reassess the entire evidence on record and to ascertain whether findings recorded by the Trial Court, while answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative, would warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. The defendant having voluntarily restricted his claim cannot now be permitted to retract from the statement made before the Appellate Court.

¶57

Though learned counsel on record made a feeble attempt by contending that no such statement was made before the Appellate Court, I am not inclined to accede to the said argument. If such is the case, nothing prevented the defendant to seek review before the Court, which had recorded the statement.

¶58

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:41327 RSA No. 1797 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1798 of 2016

¶59

If all these significant details are looked into, then

¶60

I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶61

Accordingly, both appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly, stand dismissed.

¶62

In view of dismissal of appeal, I.A.Nos.1/2016

¶63

filed in both appeals are also dismissed

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

NBM

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. B.V. Seetharam v. Dr. Anand Saldanha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B.V. Seetharam v. Dr. Anand Saldanha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shantha Kumari Vs Sri. Namiraja Jain

Sri Rajamani Vs Ramakrishna

The Executive Officer Vs Sri. H. T. Devakumar

Rangaiah Vs Ramalingappa

K S Rajashekar Vs Mahesh

Smt Mariyamma Vs Akkamma