Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1081 (RAJ)

Manish Vyas v. Brahm Singh Parihar

2016-07-28

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.08.1996 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Civil Regular Suit No.40/91 whereby a decree has been passed against the appellant defendant for Rs.18,000/- along with interest as damages for causing defamation to the respondent plaintiff Shri Brahm Singh Parihar. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the plaintiffs Shri Brahm Singh Parihar and Dr. Chiman Singh, both the sons of Shri Mangal Singh filed a suit for damages alleging that defendant No.1 Shri Manish Vyas, who is Chief Editor and Publisher Printer for daily newspaper ^^lk{; nSfud rhljk izgj** published a news on dated 25.2.1991 titled as ^^Hkktik usrk us 60 yk[k dh tehu nckbZ** . As alleged in the plaint, this news caused defamation to the plaintiffs stating therein that by removing the huts situated on the land, they have grabbed the land of 100 ft. wide road by misusing their position. As alleged, the news was completely baseless and wrong as father of plaintiffs Shri Mangal Singh was in possession of the land as Khatedari tenant since Samvat 2008. Plaintiff No.1 was a senior BJP leader having a very esteemed position and plaintiff No.2 was a responsible Government officer. The news blemished their image and adversely effected their reputation. Thus, a suit was filed for damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. Allegations made in the plaint were refuted by filing written statement. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- “1. Whether the news published on dated 25.2.1991 in edition of “Sandhya Dainik” alleging that plaintiffs grabbed the land worth Rs.60 Lacs has adversely effected the reputation of plaintiffs; 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the damanges of Rs.1,00,000/- and; 3. Relief clause.” 5. During trial, plaintiffs got as many as six witnesses examined and submitted documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the plaint. 6. Defendant Manish Vyas examined himself as DW-1. No documentary evidence was produced on his behalf. 7. After hearing arguments of both the sides, learned trial Court decided the suit vide judgment dated 20.08.1996 coming to the conclusion that defendant No.1, without verifying the facts, published the news in the newspaper which caused adverse effect upon the reputation of plaintiff No.1. Defendant Manish Vyas examined himself as DW-1. No documentary evidence was produced on his behalf. 7. After hearing arguments of both the sides, learned trial Court decided the suit vide judgment dated 20.08.1996 coming to the conclusion that defendant No.1, without verifying the facts, published the news in the newspaper which caused adverse effect upon the reputation of plaintiff No.1. Thus, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff by awarding Rs.8,000/- for attending 80 dates of hearing at the cost of Rs.100/- per hearing as also Rs.10,000/- in lump sum for awarding damages for defamatory news. Interest @ 6% was also awarded on Rs.10,000/- from the date of presentation of suit i.e. 08.05.1991 and from the date of judgment on Rs.8,000/-. 8. While assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant defendant has alleged that learned trial Court has given its finding only upon the statements of DW-1, appellant Manish Vyas. The plaintiff himself could not produce any cogent evidence in support of the allegations made in the plaint and has thus failed to prove the case. Thus, the finding given by learned trial Court regarding issue No.1 is wholly perverse and erroneous. Learned trial Court has also inferred that no special defamation has been proved, even then the decree has been passed against the defendants. No conclusion has been drawn as to how the news published in the newspaper was false. On these grounds, the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent has refuted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant saying that issue No.1 was proved not only by the evidence given by the plaintiff but also on the basis of the admission made by the defendant himself during his cross examination. No wrong has been committed by learned trial Court by relying upon the admission made by defendant himself. Besides this, other witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff have also proved that adverse effect was caused on the reputation of plaintiff No.1 by the publication of the said news. He has, thus, contended that the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is perfect and is liable to be upheld. 10. Besides this, other witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff have also proved that adverse effect was caused on the reputation of plaintiff No.1 by the publication of the said news. He has, thus, contended that the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is perfect and is liable to be upheld. 10. In the light of the arguments advanced by both the learned counsels for the parties at Bar, the judgment impugned was critically analysed and considered. 11. Apparently, it appears that the learned trial Court has based its inference qua issue No.1 mainly on the evidence given by the defendant appellant DW-1 Manish Vyas. The abstracts of his evidence has been produced in the judgment itself. But at the same time, the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff has also been considered and discussed. Learned trial Court has inferred that plaintiff PW-1 Brahm Singh has succeeded in his efforts to prove that the published news was based on wrong facts and was baseless. Similarly, the evidence of PW-3 to PW-6 has also been referred and discussed in the impugned judgment wherein these witnesses have deposed that by publication of the alleged news, the reputation and image of plaintiff has been adversely effected. Thus, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that loss to his image, in general has been caused, though any special/specific damage has not been proved to have been caused. 12. In the light of the above discussions, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not found correct that learned trial Court has based its judgment simply on the evidence given by the defendant. However, it cannot be considered erroneous on the part of the learned trial Court to draw the inference based on the statements/ admissions made by DW-1 Manish Vyas. 13. On analysing the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it has also come on record that the news was not published after making proper and genuine enquiry by the defendant. PW-1 has referred the judgment passed by ACM (Headquarter), Jodhpur in Revenue Suit No.163/85 on dated 08.07.1986 whereby for the alleged land Mangal Singh, father of the plaintiff was declared to be khatedar of Khasra No.58/2. PW-1 has referred the judgment passed by ACM (Headquarter), Jodhpur in Revenue Suit No.163/85 on dated 08.07.1986 whereby for the alleged land Mangal Singh, father of the plaintiff was declared to be khatedar of Khasra No.58/2. Of course, he has admitted that reference was made by the Tehsildar in respect of this judgment but has also specifically said that no reference was pending when the news Ex-1 was published. The plaintiff has also stated that ‘Girdawari, Bigodi receipts and the entries in Dhal-Banch’ were made in the name of his father since Samvat, 2008. It is also interesting to note that defendant himself has admitted during his cross-examination that he did not understand in the revenue record and he did not make any enquiry from his correspondent as to whether he has seen the revenue record or not in respect of the alleged land. He also did not enquire that the land of Khasra No.58/2 was existing in whose khatedari when the news was published. Taking these facts into consideration, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the news was not published after making proper enquiry with respect to the correctness of allegations mentioned therein. 14. In view of above, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be considered as valid. Thus, the inference drawn by learned trial Court in respect of Issue No.1 is found to be in accordance with the evidence available on record and thus, is liable to be upheld. 15. So far as Issue No.2 is concerned, as against the claim laid by the plaintiffs for Rs. One Lakh as damages, Rs.18,000/- has been awarded by learned trial Court. The grounds on which this amount has been calculated have also been specifically mentioned in para-15 of the impugned judgment. Taking these grounds into consideration, the amount awarded as damages cannot at all be considered on higher side. A sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded on account of damages caused by the defamatory news and Rs.8,000/- has been awarded as compensation to attend the hearing during pendency of suit @ Rs.100/- per hearing for 80 hearings. Interest has been ordered to be calculated @ 6% simple interest, which cannot be treated on higher side. Thus, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any infirmity in awarding the amount on higher side. 16. Interest has been ordered to be calculated @ 6% simple interest, which cannot be treated on higher side. Thus, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any infirmity in awarding the amount on higher side. 16. In view of above, no substance is found in the appeal preferred by the appellant defendant and the same is liable to be dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 20.08.1996 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Jodhpur is upheld and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.