Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1651 (MAD)

Ananda Vikatan Publishers Pvt. Ltd. v. R. Boomi

2021-06-03

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2021
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants in O.S. No. 73 of 2020, pending on the file of the 2nd Additional District Court, Vellore to strike off the plaint. 2. The suit in O.S. No. 73 of 2020 had been filed by the plaintiff, Tmt. R. Bommi against three defendants, (1) M/s Ananda Vikatan Publishers Pvt. Ltd., (2) S. Arivazhagan, the Editor and Publisher of Junior Vikatan and (3) S. Raju, of SSS Soft Source and Printing Solutions Pvt. Ltd., claiming damages of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) for the defamative allegation leveled and published against the plaintiff’s husband together with interest @ 9% perannum from the date of the plaint till the date of realization and for costs of the suit. 3. The plaintiff’s husband, late G.G. Ravi was said to be a reputed personality, having started an Engineering College, being elected as Councillor in Vellore Corporation, and having served the poor and downtrodden in society. He had been murdered on 12.02.2007. In this connection, FIR in Cr. No. 48 of 2017 had been registered by the Inspector of Police, Viruthampet Police Station. 4. The plaintiff stated that an article Ganstargalai uruvaakia “Paalkaara Rowdy” (IN OTHER LANGUAGE) had been published in the issue dated 12.07.2020 in the Tamil Magazine, Junior Vikatan. The plaintiff claimed that the headlines and the contents were damaging to the reputation of her late husband. She denied the contents of the said article. She claimed that she was deeply distressed by the article. An advocate notice dated 15.07.2020 was caused to be issued to the defendants, and though they had received the same, had not replied to it. It is under these circumstances that the suit had been filed claiming damages for the defamative allegation leveled and published against the plaintiff’s husband. 5. On receipt of suit summons, the defendants filed the present revision petition, seeking to strike off the plaint, on the main ground that no action would lie for defamatory statements made about a person who is dead. 6. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. N. Ramesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants in the suit and by Mr. E.C. Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in the suit. 7. I have carefully considered the records. 8. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is as follows: “306. 6. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. N. Ramesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants in the suit and by Mr. E.C. Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in the suit. 7. I have carefully considered the records. 8. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is as follows: “306. Demands and rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator.—All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party; and except also cases where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory. Illustrations (i) A collision takes place on a railway in consequence of some neglect or default of an official, and a passenger is severely hurt, but not so as to cause death. He afterwards dies without having brought any action. The cause of action does not survive. (ii) A sues for divorce. A dies. The cause of action does not survive to his representative.” 9. The said provision is very clear. In simple terms it means that a claim for compensation for defamation is not maintainable in respect of defamation of a deceased person. 10. In the body of the plaint, the plaintiff has repeatedly stated that the article complained of was defamatory to the reputation of her late husband, who died on 12.02.2017. However, in the notice issued prior to institution of the suit, she had claimed that the article was defamatory to herself and her family. But while claiming the relief in the suit, she had claimed “…damages of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) for the defamative allegation leveled and published against the Plaintiff’s husband..” 11. It is the plaint and relief sought in the plaint that can be considered. A copy of the notice dated 15.07.2020 had been filed as a document along with the plaint. But that may not come to the rescue to the plaintiff and cannot be taken as a route to circumvent Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 12. In Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan Vs. A copy of the notice dated 15.07.2020 had been filed as a document along with the plaint. But that may not come to the rescue to the plaintiff and cannot be taken as a route to circumvent Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 12. In Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan Vs. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, reported in 1986 (1) SCC 118 , it was held as follows:- "5. Under the common law, the general rule was that death of either party extinguished any cause of action in tort by one against the other. This was expressed by the maxim acto personalis moritur cum persona (a personal action dies with the person). However, by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, all causes of action vested in a person survive for the benefit of his estate except causes of action for defamation or seduction which abate on the death of such person. As the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1970, abolished the right of action for seduction of a spouse or a child from January 1, 1971, the only cause of action which would abate in England on the death of a person suing would be now a cause of action for defamation. 6. So far as this country is concerned, which causes of action survive and which abate is laid down in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 306 speaks of an action and not of an appeal. Reading of Section 306 along with Rules 1 and 11 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is, however, clear that a cause of action for defamation does not survive the death of the appellant." 13. In Puttaswamy and another Vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2017 (10) SCC 1 , it had been held as follows:- "557. In my considered opinion, right to privacy of any individual is essentially a natural right, which inheres in every human being by birth. Such right remains with the human being till he/she breathes last. It is indeed inseparable and inalienable from human being. In other words, it is born with the human being and extinguishes with human being." 14. The instant suit had been filed seeking “…damages of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) for the defamative allegation leveled and published against the Plaintiff’s husband..” The plaintiff’s husband had died on 12.02.2017. It is indeed inseparable and inalienable from human being. In other words, it is born with the human being and extinguishes with human being." 14. The instant suit had been filed seeking “…damages of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) for the defamative allegation leveled and published against the Plaintiff’s husband..” The plaintiff’s husband had died on 12.02.2017. The article complained was published on 12.07.2020. The plaint was dated 21.09.2020. 15. The law of the land is very clear. A suit for damages complaining defamation to the reputation of a deceased person is not maintainable. 16. In view of the above reasons, I have no hesitation in allowing the Civil Revision Petition. The plaint in O.S. No. 73 of 2020 now pending on the file of the 2nd Additional District Court, Vellore is directed to be struck off as not maintainable. No order as costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The plaintiff is entitled for refund of Court fees, if permitted in law. 17. However, since in the notice issued prior to institution of the suit, the plaintiff has claimed loss of reputation to herself also, striking off the plaint will not be a bar to the plaintiff seeking damages on that account, by instituting a fresh suit.