Short Note : 1. The plaintiff came with allegations that slanderous imputations were made against him by the defendants on August 15, 1965 and then on August 18, 1965 a Panchayat was convened in which the defendants openly declared that the plaintiff would have to keep one Mst. Khori in his house. According to the plaintiff, the defendants falsely imputed that Mst. Khori had been impregnated by him. He, therefore, suffered in reputation and had gone down in the eyes of the villagers. The defendants denied the allegations. 2. The two Courts below came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the defendants or any of them made the defamatory statement on 15-08-1965. As regards the 18th August 1965 incident, it. was found that a Panchayat had been convened in which about hundred persons were present. But no such declarations 'were made by the defendants as had been attributed to them. The claim of the plaintiff was, therefore, dismissed. 3. Held; Shri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. raised two contentions. First, it was pointed out -that the averments in paragraph 5 of the plaint not having been specifically denied would be deemed to have been admitted. The allegations in paragraph 5 of the plaint read as under:- "5. That on 18-8-65, the defendant again convened a Panchayat and again openly declared that the plaintiff will have to keep her in his house and in case the plaintiff refused to keep her, they will assault him seriously." 4. The defendants in their written statement in reply to the above allegations stated as under:- ^^5- okni= fQdjk uEcj 5 ds c;ku fd fnukad 18-8-1965 dks Áfroknh x.k us oknh dks iapk;r esa eqlEekr [kksjh dks vius ?kj esa j[kus ds ckcr] dksbZ ekjihV dh /kedh nh gS] >wB vkSj bUdkj gSA** 5. The allegations in paragraph 5 are undoubtedly in two parts. The first part refers to the declaration made by the defendants that the plaintiff will have to keep Mst. Khori in the house and the second part pertains to the allegation that they would assault him, if the appellant failed to keep her in the house. The reply undoubtedly is clumsily worded but, in my opinion, the sense is fairly clear and it would amount to a complete traverse. Khori in the house and the second part pertains to the allegation that they would assault him, if the appellant failed to keep her in the house. The reply undoubtedly is clumsily worded but, in my opinion, the sense is fairly clear and it would amount to a complete traverse. The defendants seek to deny as regards the declaration as also the beating part if the plaintiff failed to keep Mst. Khori in the house. It would also be seen that the pleadings are to be read as a whole. From the special pleadings of the defendants it would appear that the Panchayat had been called on 18-8-1965 to consider the complaint of Mst. Khori. But the Panchayat had to be adjourned as neither the plaintiff nor one Panch Girdharisingh attended it. I, therefore, see no substance in this part of the argument. 6. It is then contended that one of the defendants Suraj Sahu in his cross-examination stated that the defendant Bhagatooram read out the complaint of Mst. Khori and this amounted to publication of defamatory statement. The case against Bhagatooram was, therefore, established. It is well established that tale bearers are as bad as taletellers and if it is established that Bhagatooram had read out the complaint of Mst. Khori and that the complaint contained a slander. Bhagatooram could not avoid his responsibility for defamation unless he pleaded qualified privilege or other justification. It may be pointed out that the Court of first appeal ignored the statement of Suraj in cross-examination nor any care was taken to include the statement in the Paper-Book in the second appeal. The plaintiff's evidence did not indicate that Bhagatooram made any declaration or read out the complaint which could constitute slander. Now, it is one thing to say that the defendants made declaration in the Panchayat that the plaintiff would have to keep Mst. Khori in his house and yet, another to come up with a case that Bhagatooram or any of the defendants read out the complaint of Mst. Khori which constituted actionable slander. No foundation has been laid in the pleadings whereby Bhagatooram could be made liable for reading the complaint of Mst. Khori. It has not been pointed out as to what the complaint contained. The actual words are important or, in any case, it has not been averred that Khori's complaint was defamatory. Khori which constituted actionable slander. No foundation has been laid in the pleadings whereby Bhagatooram could be made liable for reading the complaint of Mst. Khori. It has not been pointed out as to what the complaint contained. The actual words are important or, in any case, it has not been averred that Khori's complaint was defamatory. This is important because unless this was done the specific case could not be adequately met by Bhagatooram nor could he plead justification or a qualified privilege. On the bald statement made by one of the defendants it could not be held whether Bhagatooram really read out the complaint or whether the complaint as read out was defamatory. Appeal dismissed.