Partly allowed

Dr. Ahmed Shaji Akbar, v. Smt. Saleha Sultana

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023AS/684/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court appealed against lower court damages in defamation suits. The court held that only those who published the letter were liable and reduced Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000 due to lack of evidence for higher damages. It dismissed the injunction transfer appeal as defendants pledged no future publication.

What did the court decide?

Reduction of damages awarded from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000. Transfer appeal against injunction dismissed.

Dr. Ahmed Shaji Akbar, Vs Smt. Saleha Sultana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TI AT HYDJREABIflE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

'?ir'S?f, lr'J^'-81'^ll'#,l.i,T.#l?y-

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

, THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE M.LA(MAN

¶6

PEAL SUI TNoi 684 oF2000 and s ER PEAL S UIT No.3457 oF2 0

¶7

APP EAL SUIT NO:684 o F2000

¶8

3:,i#ffiffi^{gai*t:3,:i,:?3.":pl#Xn""tl,JliEjy1fl} T"#.iixp,f; 3:?,,?;ei?1

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

, Pj;#fffifhaji Akbar, S/o mohd. Akbar, Lecrurer R/o 7-7-29, Ujti Baze,

¶11

'^{y#,#js/oMohd omar,Retdsocial wetfare} lnspector No l_l_29, lJlli ' ET,t;,f"J,ir1.Besum,^woMohd Akbar, Househotd No 7_7_29, l)jli Baze,

¶12

4 [Hi1,P#i:*,n,^{s/o Mohd} Yakub Ati, Lecturer No l_7-2g, Ujli Baze,

¶13

AND

¶14

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANT NO.1 TO 4

¶15

35'i;i3'?"t#:1i,?;glill'"d^shajiAkbar, Leurer in urdu Arrs and

¶16

2 Sri Mohd. yakub Ati, D|ED. a Sri Mohd. Abu Baker, DIED.

¶17

{["?ortf"tlj"^{No' 2 & 3 diedduring pendency} of Suit and suir against

¶18

..RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT NO. 5 & 6 MP. o 19 F !n AS No.684 of 2000

¶19

Petition under Section :y:p.19 tne aniaavlt^the rirJffi^operation ",#;^{oi rhe} liffi?ff:f?nlt,in,T.,Tumsrances iudsment C;;";;; ;;,rd,.;.r', may be preased stated roin passed by the principar seni;i cr;rr rrogl w;;;g, ffit:rr.::1r.1i,"/i.,. rooo

¶20

TRANSFER APPEAL SUIT NO.345 7 F 2003

¶21

Appeal under section^gO of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 12.01.2000 made in O.S.No.205 of 1987 in O.S.No.296 5f tggs on the fite of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

¶22

Between:

¶23

1- lvlohd..Akbar,.S/o Mohd. Omar, Retd. social welfare lnspector No l-l_2g, qfi Baze, Hanamkonda.

¶24

Dr. Ahmed. Shaji Akbar, S/o mohd. Akbar, Lecturer No 7-7-29, Ujti Baze, hanamkonda.

¶25

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS

¶26

AND

¶27

Smt. Saleha Sultana, Wo Ahmed Shaji Akbar, Lecturer in urdu Arts and Science Collecge, Warangal

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶29

Counsel for the Appellants in both Appeals : SRl. J pRABHAKAR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents in both Appeals : SRl. p SREERAMA MURTHY

¶31

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN APPEAL SUIT No.684 of 2OOO and Transfer APPEAL SUIT No.3457 of 2OO3

¶33

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶34

1 . The present appeals are arising out of two different suits and these two appeals are filed challenging the common order and decree dated 12.01.2000 in O.S.Nos.205 of t98T and O.S.No.296 of 1995, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), wherein and whereby the plaintiff filed O.S.No.296 of 1995 seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants from publishing and distributing any matter defamatory or against the interest of the plaintiff and in O.S.No.2O5 of 1987 the plaintiff claimed Rs.SO,00O/- wirh future interest at 9o/o towards damages for publication of defamation statement.

¶35

The appellants herein are defendant Nos.l to 4 before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in suit.

¶36

The case of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 1 is the husband of the plaintiff; defendant Nos.2 and 3 are parents of defendant No. 1; defendant No.4 is the brother-in-law of defendant No.l, and defendant Nos.S and 6 are third parties. Defendant Nos.I to 4 addressed a letter to the plaintift containing false allegations and they also commurr.icated the said letter to various

¶37

¶38

other persons amounting to defamaticn. In this regard plaintiff filed O.S.Nos.2OS of 1987 and O.S.No.296 of 1995 and the trial Court, by way of common judgment and decree dated 12.O1.2000, had allowed the above said two suits. I{owever, the trial Court in O.S.No.2OS of 1987, directedthe defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to pay an amount of Rs.50,OO0/- together with future interest at 9o/o per annum from the date of the suit till the date of reaJization.' Aggrieved by the common judgment and decree dated 12.O1.2OO0 in O.S.No.2O5 of 1987 and O.S.No.296 of 1995, defendant Nos.l to 4 preferred the present appeals. The case against defendant Nos.5 and 6 is abated as defendant Nos.5 and 6 died.

¶39

The defence set up by the defendants is that the contents of the letter were true, but the said letter was not circulated to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the estimation of others, but it was circulated with a hope that they would interfere and settle the disputes amicably among the ilaintiff and defendants. It is further contended that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had circulated the said letter and defendant Nos.3 and 4 had no role in the same and the trial Court by not accepting the defence set up by them, directed defendant Nos. I to 4 to pay an amount of Rs.50,O0O/together with future interest at 9%o.

¶40

During the pendency of the present appeals, the defendant No.2 died and defendant Fio.l pur,sual'rt to tl-re decree dated

¶41

¶42

,/ I I i I i

¶43

12.Ol.2OOO,haddepositedanamountofRs'25'OO0/-withinterest and the^{plaintiff was perrnittedto withdrawthe same' The} defend,ants^{had not published such information with an intention} to lower^{the reputation of the plaintiff alrd pray to dismiss the} suit.

¶44

Heard both^sides'

¶45

7 Now, the^{only point for consideration in the present appeals} is that:

¶46

'Whether^{in tleletter circulatedthere is ang specijic'} touching^{tLe conduct of} reference^to "t'toln--"titement the utomen''

¶47

Upon^{close reading of the contentsof the letter' this Court} finds that^{the contents in the letter are defamatoryin nature and} unlessthesameisproved,thetrialCourtoughtnottohave allowed^{the suit' Since there is no evidence to show that the} defamatory^{matter truth' The trial Court' by not acceptingthe} defence^{set up by defendant Nos'1to 4 had directed them to pay} Rs.5O,0OO /^- '^{The pleadingsand evidence shorvs that the letr'ers} were addressed^{and published bydefendantNos' Iand 2'} Defendant^{Nos.3 and 4 have not publishedany letter' At the most'} if any defamation^{contentswere acceptedin the letters published} by defendant^{Nos'1and 2'they alone held liable and not} defendant^{Ncs.3 and 4, who were not part of such statement'The} trial Court^{had committed error in fixing the liabilityon defendant}

¶48

¶49

: I i II

¶50

Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the hndings ol the trial Court inflicting the damages against defendant Nos.3 and 4 jointly along with defendant Nos. I and 2 is not sustainable. So far as, the grant of quantum, there is no proper evidence and findings how such amount was arrived. Hence, this Court feels that fixation of Rs.SO,OOO/- is excessive and the damages awarded by the trial Court shall be reduced.

¶51

Dealing with the grant of injunction, it is clear from the defence that the defendants will not publish any defamatory contents. When such is the case of the defendants, the appeal against the grant of injunction cannot be entertained and the Transfer Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶52

In the result, the A.S.No.684 of 2000 is partly allowed and the damages awarded by the trial Court is reduced from Rs.50,0O0/- to 25,00O/- with the same interest as granted by rhe trial Court and the Transfer Appeal Suit No.3457 of 2O03 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶53

SDI K SRINIVASA RAO, JO &E)^GI TRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. (With records, if any)

¶58

One CC to SRI J PRABHAKAR, Advocate [OpUC]

¶59

One CC to SRl. P SREERAI/A MURTHY, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies -

¶60

ADK )''-

¶61

HIGH COURT DATED:0610912023

¶62

ORDER APPEAL SUIT.No.684 of 2000^' 'i ? i AND ,',),. TRANSFER APPEAL SUIT No.34srrof 2003

¶63

PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT^No.684 of 2OOO AND DISMISSING THE TRANSFER^APPEAL SUIT No. 3457 of 2003 WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

\tu0 >\

Dr. Ahmed Shaji Akbar, v. Smt. Saleha Sultana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ahmed Shaji Akbar, v. Smt. Saleha Sultana

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

Mr.R.Mallesh Vs a.Sanjeeva Reddy and Anr.

Vankidi Sujatha and Another Vs a. Samaiah and 3 Others

Syed Muqtadeer Ahmed Vs N.Siddappa and Another

K.Venkata Narayana Vs Smt.N.Saroja

T. Padma Vs T. Nagabhushanam(Died) per Lr Rr 2 to 4

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Chennaram and 2 Ors.