In this regular second appeal, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by a journalist/amravious challenging concurrent lower court judgments awarding damages for defamation. The court held no substantial question of law arose as the defendant failed to provide rebuttal evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2099 OF 2016 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HITHKAR JAIN V, S/O VRUSHABHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, EDITOR, PRINTER & PUBLISHER, "SUVARNA PRABHA", DAILY NEWS PAPER, 2ND CROSS, G.P. ROAD, SAGAR TOWN, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by REKHA ANKAIAH Location: High Court of Karnataka
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.V. RAJASHEKHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.7.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.102/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR. DISMISSING THE SUIT AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.4.2013 PASSED IN OS NO.39/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned Second Appeal is filed by the defendant, questioning the concurrent judgments rendered by the Courts below, wherein plaintiffs suit seeking relief of damages on the ground that defendant has published a false article, which is malicious only with an intention to make wrongful gain is decreed by both the Courts, thereby ordering damages of Rs.1,00,000/-. These concurrent findings are under challenge by the defendant.
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
Plaintiff No.1 is a registered trust, which is into educational activities in Sagar Taluk and also in the district of Shivamoga. Plaintiff No.2 is the president of plaintiff No.1-Trust and is carrying on philanthropic educational and social activities as a member of civil society. The plaintiffs contended that trust is running number of educational institutions. The defendant is the editor, printer and publisher of a local kannada daily in Sagar under the name 'Suvarna Prabha', which has circulation in the city of Sagar and also in the District of Shimoga. The present suit is filed alleging that the article published by the defendant has seriously damaged the reputation and goodwill of institutions run by plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs alleged that the articles published were filled with obscenity and vulgarity and virtually dented the character of plaintiff No.2. Both the articles relate to sexual
NC: 2023:KHC:41827 RSA No. 2099 of 2016
harassment to the students and the cultural activities conducted by plaintiff No.1-Trust, which went on till late night, where obscene dances were performed. On this set of pleadings, the present suit came to be filed in O.S.No.39/2010 alleging that two articles published by the defendants have caused immense damage to the reputation of plaintiff No.1-Trust as well as the same amount to the character assassination of plaintiff No.2, who claims to be very reputed and respected in society.
on record and also the defence set up by the defendant, who claimed that these articles were published in the news paper in good faith and never intended to defame plaintiff
No.1-Trust or plaintiff No.2, was not inclined to exceed the defence set up by the defendant. The Trial Court, while examining the material on record, found that plaintiff No.1 is an educational institution running various educational institutions. The two published items were culled out by the Trial Court. While examining these two articles, the Trial Court has examined the evidence of D.W.1 to ascertain whether a valid defence is made during trial. The Trial Court, while referring to the evidence let in by the defendant, which is in the form of oral evidence, found that the defendant, to substantiate that the cultural activities were tainted with obscenity and the dances performed by the students were found to be totally indecent and unacceptable, has not produced any recordings of the said dances, which were performed during the cultural activities conducted by the plaintiff No.1, educational institution. It is in this background, the Trial Court recorded categorical findings that the publications made by defendant were not found to be in good faith and in the interest of the public. Referring to
the contents of the publication, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the said publication has obviously damaged the reputation of the plaintiffs, the publication at the hands of defendant was consciously intended to secure a wide circulation and make wrongful gain and the said publication is not obviously in the interest of the public at large. Taking note of the conduct of the defendant, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit partly, thereby awarding damages of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%.
and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, being a final fact-finding authority, has independently assessed the entire evidence on record. The Appellate Court, on reappreciation of evidence on record, however, was not inclined to interfere with the reasons and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court while rendering its findings on all the issues. The Appellate Court found that there is no
infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.
law would arise for consideration. Further, he would vehemently argue and contend that similar articles were published in 'Samyuktha Karnataka" and therefore, he would contend that the damages awarded by both the Courts without taking cognizance of admission elicited in cross-examination of plaintiff in regard to similar publications would warrant interference at the hands of this Court. He would conclude his argument by contending that these publications were made in good faith and in the interest of the public at large and therefore, the decree granted by both the courts would warrant interference at the hands of this Court.
published by the defendant on the basis of two letters received by the defendant, which were dropped in letter box. The entire edifice of defence by the defendant is that the articles published are based on the letters. However, the Trial Court found that those letters were not produced by the defendant except stating in oral evidence. The article also refer to rape of a girl in a farm house, which is also not substantiated by the defendant and it is successfully elicited in the cross-examination of the defendant that he has not met the victim and made an enquiry before publishing the said article. Referring to all these significant details, both the courts have come to the conclusion that these publications amount to defamation and have obviously damaged the reputation of plaintiff No.1-Trust as well as plaintiff No.2. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the articles published by the defendant amount to defamation, which has harmed the reputation and have consequently awarded damages. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, both the Courts have concurrently held that these publications were not made in
good faith and were not in the interest of the public at large. I have given my anxious consideration to the reasons and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court as well as the findings recorded by the Appellate Court, while affirming the reasons recorded by the Trial Court. I am of the view that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: BHK
3 issues framed by the court
whether the quantum of damages assessed by the lower courts was unsupported by evidence.
whether the appellant raised a substantial question of law requiring interference under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
whether the second appeal warrants interference given the absence of rebuttal evidence by the defendant.
SRI. HITHKAR JAIN
SRI. SINGANDOORESHWARI EDUCATIONAL TRUST (REG.)
SRI. N. KRISHNAMURTHY
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
