Partly allowed

Sri Udiyanda M. Muddaiah v. Kodava Samaja

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024RFA/91/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defamation suit by a registered community society against a member who circulated pamphlets alleging mismanagement; trial court decreed damages and apology. The High Court upheld findings that the words were defamatory but reduced damages from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.2,50,000 without interest, allowing the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Damages reduced to Rs.2,50,000 without interest; rest of decree including injunction and apology direction unaltered; apology publication time extended till 15.11.2024.

Sri Udiyanda M. Muddaiah Vs Kodava Samaja — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2020 (RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. UDIYANDA M. MUDDAIAH, S/O LATE MEDAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1264, 13^TH CROSS ROAD, VISHWABHARATHI HOUSING COMPLEX, 2^ND STAGE, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 085. …APPELLANT

¶6

(BY SRI. K.N. PHANIDRA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

KODAVA SAMAJA A REGISTERED SOCIETY, NO.7, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, VASANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 52. REP BY ITS HON’BLE SECRETARY, RAVI UTTAPPA, S/O LATE ACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI.K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶14

THIS RFA FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.09.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO. 2905/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-15), BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION.

¶15

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

Heard Sri.K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel for

¶19

the appellant and Sri.K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶20

Appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.2905/2009 challenging the validity of the

¶21

judgment and decree dated 11.09.2019 on the file of VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-15).

¶22

Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant

¶23

for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Court below.

¶24

Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶27

4.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for damages/compensation

¶28

by contending that plaintiff is century old institution catering to the welfare, culture and progress of Kodava Community. 8,500 registered members are there on the role of the plaintiff’s institution. Plaintiff’s institution was commenced as pattern by celebrity by name Field Marshal Sri.K.M.Cariappa. Successive managements have managed the plaintiff institution in a proper manner. Over a period of time commercial complex, marriage hall, educational institutions were built by the plaintiff institution and is catering to the needs of the Kodava community persons in particular and general public at large.

¶29

4.2. It is also contended that plaintiff is a registered institution under the Societies Registration Act and it has been managed by approved bye-laws. Regular election are held, whereby the governing body of the plaintiff institution is being elected by the registered members. The economic activities of the plaintiff are stream lined

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶31

and it is being regularly audited. The audited accounts should be placed for the consideration of the members in the Annual General Body Meeting for approval and is being approved regularly.

¶32

4.3. It is further contended that defendant being one of the senior members of the plaintiff institution, having complete knowledge of the affairs of the plaintiff institution with a malafide and fraudulent intention, got printed pamphlets on 24.11.2007 with false, derogatory and defamatory words and baseless charges were also leveled against the governing council members of plaintiff institution during the year 1998 to 2006.

¶33

4.4. Defendant was cautioned to withdraw from such activities; but defendant failed to do so. Therefore, a legal notice was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff calling upon him to refrain from leveling false, reckless allegations against the plaintiff institution.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶36

4.5. Despite the service of legal notice, defendant

¶37

went on with his malafide activities and did not chose to reply the legal notice as well. Therefore, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit seeking damages quantified in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and also seeking apology for the activities conducted by the defendant.

¶38

Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation and suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

¶39

The defendant also contended that Mr.M.Belliappa, had already filed a suit in O.S.No.2904/2009 claiming to be the past President of plaintiff institution and the pleadings in both the suits are practically identical. Therefore, second suit on the same set of facts is not permissible and sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶40

Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised following issues:

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶43

1. Does the plaintiff prove article published by the defendants during 2001 to 2008 in Paschimagiri Varthe taken out defamatory statemes in the pamphlet and in the paper publications against the plaintiff is a defamatory as alledged?

¶44

2. If so, does the defendant prove that the said article contains true facts as alleged?

¶45

3. Does the plaintiff prove invasion of right by the defendant as alleged?

¶46

4. Whether the suit is in time?

¶47

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged by the defendant?

¶48

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of damages as prayed for?

¶49

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

¶50

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed?

¶51

9. What order or decree?

¶52

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, office bearer of the plaintiff institution by name Sri.K.B.Chinnappa, was examined at the first instance as P.W.1 and his evidence was discarded as he could not appear for the cross-examination.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶55

Thereafter, one Sri.C.A.Madappa was examined as P.W.1. He also expired and thereafter, six witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.7. In all, as many as, forty two documentary evidence were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.42 to substantiate the allegations made by the plaintiff against the defendant.

¶56

As against the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and one Sri.Chamera T. Kalappa was examined as D.W.2. On behalf of defendants, nine documents were exhibited and marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9.

¶57

On conclusion of recording of the evidence, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and after cumulative analysis of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶58

Operative portion of the judgment is culled out hereunder for ready reference:

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶61

“Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.

¶62

Defendant is directed to pay damages of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till payment of entire amount.

¶63

Further, defendant is restrained from making any allegations against the plaintiff with regard to management of Bangalore Kodava Samaja till final disposal of the matter pending before the District Registrar of Societies.

¶64

Further, defendant is directed to tender an unconditional apology to the plaintiff by publishing a pamphlet proposing unconditional apology and also disclose the same by conducting a Press Meet, within one month from the date of this judgment.

¶65

Draw decree accordingly.”

¶66

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant has

¶67

preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

¶68

The Judgement and Decree of the trial court is based on assumptions and presumptions without sufficient material on record.

¶69

The Learned Judge failed to observe that the explanation offered by the Plaintiff are totally groundless and baseless, whereas the allegations of the Defendant are true and supported by cogent evidence.

¶70

The Order/Directions of the Trial Court Judge is severe harsh and uncalled for in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

¶71

The Hinthin Lower Court Judge has fallen serve they all the witnesses examined on behalf of the stiff το only highly Interested witnesses, but as a

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶74

matter of f they are the persone anewerable for all the allegations mase In the Nand Bill in one way or the other.

¶75

The Hon'ble Trial Court Judge has totally erred by not considering the fact that Suit for damages filed by the Plaintiff is barred by limitation, for the reason that, all that is published in the Handbill Dt.24/11/2007 was already published in the year Dt.9/11/2001 in Pachimagiri Varthe. The Plaintiff had not taken any action against the publisher of the Newspaper then, hence as per Article 76 of the Limitation Act the suit for damages is barred by limitation as there is no cause of action.

¶76

The Learned Judge grossly erred in holding that, the Suit is not barred by limitation by observing that the suit is based on the Hand bill published in 2008, in spite of the fact that the suit is based on allegations of 1999 was already published in 2001.

¶77

The Learned Judge erred by ignoring the fact Plaintiff had filed a criminal complaint against Defendant for defamation in C.C.No.25371/2009 on the file of the Hon'ble but the said Complaint came to be VIII ACMM dismissed for nonprosecution on 25/04/2016 which reflects the attitude of the Plaintiff is harassing the Defendant for standing against irregularities at Plaintiff Samaja.

¶78

The Trial Court Judge has also failed to consider the fact that, Plaintiff has not made publishers party in the said suit nor has examined any of the publishers. It is pertinent to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that publication in the newspapers is inconsistent with the press note, which makes Publishers alone liable for the said publication.

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶81

It is submitted that, it has come in evidence that the news paper publication was not based on any oral statement of any of the members or the Defendant for the simple reason that the press conference did not last even for a minute, t

¶82

The Learned Judge has failed to observe that, the allegations in the Hand Bill are against Kodava Samaja only, but Belliyappa's name is published in the news paper, hence Plaintiff Samaja case has to fail as the publication is unauthorized.

¶83

The Lower Court has failed to see that two suits are filed for the same cause of action against the same party causing Double Jeopardy, It is well settled portion of law that nobody can be vexed twice for the same offence or cause of action.

¶84

The Trial Court Judge has ignored the fact that, Plaintiff has committed gross violation of the ByeLaws of the Samaja by giving donation of Rs.16 lakhs for Kodava Education Society (Coorg Institute of Technology), as the donation was not approved by the General Body and further Lower Court has also failed to see that, the beneficiary institution l.e., the Coorg Institute of Technology was not in existence at the time when the Donation was granted. The Coorg Institute of Technology came into existence on 9/07/2000, but the payment receipts for Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.6 lakhs are dated 26/6/1999 and 2/12/1999, the donations were made to Coorg Institute of Technology even before the institution came into existence inspite of objection from members in the meeting held on 13/2/1999.

¶85

The Trial Court has also failed to see that, the said amount of Rs.16 lakhs was given as donation for construction of hall in the name of General Carlappa, but only his name is displayed on one of the blocks at Coorg Institute of Technology.

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶88

The Lower Court by its observation has taken the gross violations committed by the Managing Committee members very lightly, because the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- that was given as donation to the Coorg Institute of Technology was public money collected for the centenary celebration of Field Marshal K.M Cariappa and during evidence Plaintiff and his witnesses have admitted that Executive Committee did not have the power to donate Rs.16,00,000/- and further it is also admitted during evidence that the said amount of Rs.16,00,000/- was given by way of two Cheques, one Cheque bearing No.048:02 Dt.25/06/1999 for Rs.10,00,000/- was received by some unknown person as the receipt remains unsigned and another Cheque bearing No.398817 Dt.24/11/1999 for Rs.6,00,000/- was received and signed by one I.G.Nanaiah the internal auditor of Kodava Samaja who has been examined as P.W.3, this very fact goes to the root of the case by showcasing that Cheque is issued and received by the same person and till date details of how the amount was spent is not revealed. The facts stated above clearly shows the way Executive Committee functioned during that specific period, without any care of concern for the Bye-Laws of the Institution. Anybody raising their voice were treated like the way Defendant was treated in the above case.

¶89

It was also brought to the knowledge of the Trial Court that, Kodava Education Society was supposed to be constructed in the centre of Coorg for the benefit of Kodava Students, but the said institute was constructed in a place very close to Kerala State Border much against the wishes of the Kodava Community, as a result of which Kodava students constituted less than 10% of the total capacity of the college.

¶90

The Trial Court Judge has totally ignored the fact that, as per the Bye-laws of the Plaintiff Samaja

¶91

12 -

¶92

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶93

there are 6 office bearers and 30 Managing Committee members, out of which 6 office bearers and 25 Managing Committee members are elected. It is submitted that, till today elections have been held only with regard to office bearers and no elections have been held for the post of 25 Managing Committee members. Further the Office bearers cannot hold one post for more than two terms. When such is the case, the same elected members i.e.. 5 nominations and 25 non-elected persons from the same group have continued to remain as managing committee occupying different posts in each term, in order to indulge in groupism. Hence the same group managed the affairs of the Plaintiff Samaja with I.G.Nanaiah as Auditor and Chartered Accountant for the past 15 years. This fact has been proved by the evidence given by the Plaintiff's witnesses.

¶94

The Trial Court judge has completely overlooked the fact one M.N.Belliappa was occupying portion of the Plaintiff Samaja as a tenant for a meagre rent, which fact has been proved, as in the evidence witnesses have admitted the fact that he is a tenant from past 27 years, but in order to disprove the Defendant Plaintiff Samaja neither furnished Lease Deed or rental receipts, which goes to the crux of the саsе that, Plaintiff was giving undue advantage of M.N. Belliappa's position at Kodava Samaja.

¶95

The Lower Court Judge has totally ignored the fact that the Executive Committee have purposely not conceded the request made by several members of Plaintiff Samaja for an Independent Government Audit of Plaintiff Samaja and continued to get the Plaintiff Samaja's accounts audited by one single person I.G.Naniah who remained Auditor for more then 15 years, which fact has been proved in the evidence deposed by all Plaintiff's witnesses. Further, Government of Karnataka at the representation given by the

¶96

13 -

¶97

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶98

Defendant hao ordered on 24/4/2008, wherein the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to conduct enquiry and audit of account and submit the report to the Government, but, Executive Committee under Plaintiff instead of Conducting Government Audit announced to hold elections of Plaintiff Samaja, which compelled the Appellant to approach the press after warning the Plaintiff Samaja.

¶99

The Hon'ble Trial Court Judge has also overlooked the fact that, the Kodava Education Society Ponnampet offered Associate membership for those contributing between Rs.1 lakh to Rs.2 Lakhs, where as Donor Membership was given to those contributing more than Rs.2 lakhs Though Plaintiff Samaja contributed Rs.5 lakhs still it was given Associate membership. Though it was brought to the knowledge of the EC during various meetings, this error was not rectified for the reason that, Donor Members had voting rights and to deprive the Plainitiff Samaja of its voting right.

¶100

The Trial Court has also failed to notice the dictatorial approach of the Managing Committee against the members who raised their voice against the Administration, the member is either expelled or suspended for some time. In this case Defendant was suspended without issuing show cause notice or conducting enquiry. Which fact has been proved by the Defendant by furnishing cogent evidence.

¶101

The Hon'ble Trial Court has grossly erred by holding that, Defendant has intentionally published the Handbill, as Plaintiff Samaja refused to grant monetary help to the Defendant for his educational institution Paschimagiri Vidya Samsthe. It is pertinent to state that, Defendant had purposely approached the Plaintiff Samaja for monetory help for his educational institution in

¶102

14 -

¶103

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶104

order to demonstrate the fact that how the Executive Committee treated other educational Institutions, but, the same E.C would even violate the Bye-Laws of the Samaja to grant donations to Institutions in which they had personal interest. As a matter of fact the alleged publication is much earlier l.e., in the year 2001 itself.

¶105

The Hon'ble Trial Court has also erred by stating that, Defendant has published the Handbill against Plaintiff Samaja and Belllappa herein because he lost the election against the N.M. Belliappa clearly shows that, the Trial Court has ignored the facts and irregularities mentioned in the Handbill based on evidence, but has given prominence to some petty issue which absolutely had no significance considering the magnitude of irregularities committed by the E.C under the Plaintiff Samaja.

¶106

The Learned Judge in the judgement has held that, there is evidence about the irregularities in the management of Plaintiff Samaja that have been pointed out by the Defendant in his Handbill which goes to the root of the case, whereas the learned judge instead of dismissing the suit grossly errs by holding that, the said irregularities were later corrected hence not an offence.

¶107

The Lower Court Judge has grossly erred by holding that Defendant should have waited for the results of the enquiry before the Registrar of Societies before publishing the Handbill, but has failed to see that, the Defendant's conduct of approaching the press is just and proper, since the Plaintiff Samaja proceeded with the election without holding any enquiry purposely with an intention to avoid its consequences and further the Executive Committee has suspended the Defendant without issuing Show cause notice, without conducting an enquiry or waiting for enquiry report from the Registrar of Societies.

¶108

15 -

¶109

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶110

The Hon'ble Trial Court has also wrongly erred by stating that publication of the Handbill has damaged the reputation of the Plaintiff, by totally ignoring the fact that, the Plaintiff cannot allege defamation/damages before investigation of the irregularities and misappropriations stated in the Handbill by the Registrar of Societies and its final report.

¶111

The learned Judge has also erred by holding that, the Defendant published the Hand Bill when enquiry was pending before the Registrar of Societies and investigation before Minister of Societies was also pending in respect of the complaint amounts to defamation which is contrary to settled position of law under exception number 8, 9 and Sec 489 of Indian Penal Code.

¶112

The Hon'ble Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that, Defendant who is a retired Superintendent of Police is a proud recipient of Chief Ministers gold medal which was given in appreciation of hard and courageous work during his tenure. The Defendant has also been felicitated by Bangalore Plaintiff Samaja in recognition of his good work on 13/09/1987. It is pertinent to mention that, when a person of such a stature tries his best to bring the irregularities which were rampant at Plaintiff Samaja to public notice Hon'ble Court has totally ignored all the facts in the Handbill which are substantiated and supported by evidence but has decreed the Suit by placing prominence to facts such as Defendant out of vengeance has published the Handbill against one N.M.Belliappa. The Hon'ble Trial Court has not appreciated the hardwork and dedication put in by the Defendant to bring out the irregulates committed by the Executive Committee with appropriate evidence.

¶113

The Learned Judge has failed to observe that the allegations and grievances in the hand bill are the

¶114

16 -

¶115

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶116

grievances of the members since the year 2001 and the member who raised their voice were silenced by posing various forms of threats including suspension and termination of membership and the members felt that the Defendant being a retired Police Officer could face such threats and the Defendant took initiative to expose the irregularities by collecting evidence and approaching the Government of Karnataka Registrar of Societies and finally the press accompanied by huge number of members.

¶117

The Learned Judge has grossly erred in ignoring the fact that the Defendant has successfully proved Issue No.2 by placing cogent evidence to show that all the allegations are true based on documents, facts and figures brought on record.

¶118

The Learned Trial Court Judge has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the act of the Defendant was bonfide made in good faith in the interest of the public and Kodava Samaja based on true facts, without any reckless allegations with a right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution.

¶119

The Defendant seek permission of this Hon'ble Court to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing this Appeal.

¶120

Requisite Court fee is paid as per the separate valuation slip annexed herewith.

¶121

No Appeal is pending on the same cause of action.

¶122

Sri.K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/defendant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that all that

¶123

17 -

¶124

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶125

defendant did is, exposed the illegalities committed by the plaintiff for the period of 1999 to 2006 and same is not tolerated by the plaintiff. In order to curb the truth being further propogated among the members, plaintiff has chosen to file a second suit inasmuch as past president had already filed a suit.

¶126

He also contended that making aware the members and the general public about the affairs of the plaintiff institution. Said attempt of defendant should not be treated as defamatory and action that is attributed to the defendant is covered under the freedom of expression and therefore, Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is incorrect resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶127

He also pointed out that Trial Court has observed that irregularities alleged by the defendant is perceivable from the material placed on record. Therefore, decreeing the suit for defamation by the Trial Court is incorrect and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶128

18 -

¶129

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶130

Per contra, Sri.K.S.Bhemmaiah, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment.

¶131

He points out that defendant being the senior member of the plaintiff institution, had every opportunity to raise objections if any to the office bearers and should have objected for the accounts being not placed in the General Body Meeting and not to publicize the same even if some irregularities are found.

¶132

He also argues that assuming that there is some irregularity in conducting the affairs of the plaintiff institution, there was a methodology available under the bye-laws of the plaintiff, whereby the defendant could have brought to the notice of the office bearers or raising an issue in the General Body Meeting and for discussion. Instead of doing so, he unilaterally started distributing the pamphlets with derogatory statements despite repeated request made by the plaintiff not to publicize the issue.

¶133

19 -

¶134

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶135

He further submits that even after issuance of legal notice, defendant did not chose to reply the contents of the legal notice but went on with the activities necessitating the plaintiff to file the suit which has been rightly appreciated by learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶136

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶137

On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:

¶138

1. Whether the plaintiff has successfully established that the action attributable to the defendant per se are defamatory in nature whereby plaintiff is entitled to claim the damages?

¶139

2. Whether the defendant has been successful in establishing that he only ventilated the feelings of members of the plaintiff institution by voicing through the pamphlets and at best he was only a whistle blower. As such, suit is to be dismissed?

¶140

20 -

¶141

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶142

3. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference?

¶143

4. What order?

¶144

REG.POINT Nos.1 TO 3:

¶145

In the case on hand, there is no dispute that plaintiff is a registered institution under the Societies Registration Act. Therefore, activities of the plaintiff is to be conducted as per bye-laws that were registered with the Registrar of the society. The activities of the plaintiff were reported in the form of annual report and collection of funds and expenditure thereof were being audited and audit report was placed before the general body and after its approval, copy of which was also filed before the Registrar of societies regularly.

¶146

Admittedly, elections were held to the plaintiff institution periodically and members were elected by voting. If at all office bearers of the plaintiff institution did not discharge the work properly and if there are any irregularities/illegalities conducted by the office bearers of

¶147

21 -

¶148

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶149

the plaintiff institution, the remedy was to bring it to the notice of the members of the plaintiff institution and then remove the office bearers in accordance with law.

¶150

Defendant also had the right to set right the irregularities if any in the plaintiff society by process known to law. Instead of doing the same, defendant went on unilaterally distributing the pamphlets with objectionable words which are per se defamatory in nature.

¶151

It is to be understood that there is a thin line of difference between what is objectionable words and what is defamatory words. But that thin line is subtle. Many times, the objectionable words can be assimilated if there is some semblance of truth in the allegations but not defamatory words. Therefore, whether the words used that were printed in the form of pamphlets, even after the issuance of legal notice has defamed the plaintiff institution, has been appreciated by the learned Trial Judge with the material evidence available on record.

¶152

22 -

¶153

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶154

While so appreciating the material on record,

¶155

Trial Court has gone to the extent of finding out whether there could be any semblance of truth in the allegations leveled by the defendant against the plaintiff institution. When such an appreciation has taken place, Trial Court has also recorded that prima facie some irregularities are noted by the defendant and that has been ventilated in the form of pamphlets. But while so ventilating the feelings of the defendant, who is a senior member of the society, he should have exercised proper restraint insofar as usage of words which were printed in the pamphlet are concerned.

¶156

For the sake of dignity to be maintained, this Court is not reiterating those words in this judgment which has been referred to in the exhibits and part of the impugned judgment.

¶157

Be it what it may, words chosen by the defendant in the guise of ventilating the feelings of the defendant as against the plaintiff institution, defendant

¶158

23 -

¶159

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶160

has crossed all limits in verbally attacking the office bearers of the plaintiff.

¶161

Such an action of the defendant is termed as defamatory statement by the learned Trial Judge if not in so many words. Therefore, the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant that all that the defendant was interested only in setting right the affairs of the plaintiff institution cannot be countenanced in law.

¶162

Defendant is a senior citizen and who was also a senior member of the plaintiff institution. He had seen ups and downs of the plaintiff institution. He was part of the institution all a long and he could have advised the office bearers of the plaintiff institution if there is any serious departure from the bye-laws except the normal working of the affairs of the plaintiff institution.

¶163

Instead of advising the office bearers or taking the matter to the general body and discussing about the affairs of the plaintiff institution, by mismanagement or ill management by the office bearers, defendant has chosen

¶164

24 -

¶165

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶166

to take individual action against the plaintiff which has to be taken note of in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case.

¶167

At any rate, defendant having crossed the limits in using derogatory words against the duly elected body, has made him liable for the act of defamation and paying damages which was quantified in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶168

With the above discussion, this Court does not find any legal infirmity what so ever in the impugned judgment by directing the defendant to pay damages in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and also directing the defendant to tender unconditional apology by publishing a pamphlet and disclose the same by holding a press meet. Further, defendant was also justifiably restrained from using further defamatory statement against the plaintiff institution.

¶169

Having said thus, this Court has noted the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that

¶170

25 -

¶171

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶172

defendant is not well and he is suffering from old age ailments.

¶173

Taking note of the same and also taking note of deposit of sum of Rs.2,50,000/- before the Trial Court in terms of interim order, reducing quantified sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages to sum of Rs.2,50,000/without interest as the damages which is nominal in nature and directing the defendant to issue unconditional apology on or before 15.11.2024 would meet ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, point Nos.1 to 3 are answered.

¶174

REG.POINT No.4:

¶175

In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following:

¶176

ORDER

¶177

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶178

26 -

¶179

NC: 2024:KHC:38584 RFA No. 91 of 2020

¶180

ii. Amount of damages quantified by the Trial Court

¶181

in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is reduced to sum of Rs.2,50,000/- without interest.

¶182

iii. Rest of the judgment stands unaltered.

¶183

iv. Time to publish unconditional apology is extended till 15.11.2024.

¶184

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶185

KAV

¶186

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Sri Udiyanda M. Muddaiah v. Kodava Samaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Udiyanda M. Muddaiah v. Kodava Samaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Anjinamma Vs Smt Muninanjamma

T. a. Shankarnarayana Vs Smt.Janaki Dattatreya Khandke

Sri M Gopal Vs Sri K Jayaprakash

Sri Muni Anjinappa Vs Sri Ramaiah Since Dead by Lrs Smt Bylamma

Sri.Alwin Ambrose Vs Sri.Manivel

Sri Rangappa Vs Land Acquisition Officer/ Assistant Commissioner