IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA No. 623 of 2007()
1. C.E.RAJAN KITTUNNI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MOOCHIKKAL SHARADA, SHYLAJA COTTAGE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :20/08/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
R.S.A NO. 623 OF 2007
===========================
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2007
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff in O.S.608/2001 on the file of
Addl.Munsiff Court, Kannur is the appellant.
Defendant is the respondent. Appellant instituted
the suit seeking a decree for damages for
defamation contending that appellant sent a reply
to the lawyer notice issued at the instance of the
appellant with copy to District Court, Bar
Association and Officer in charge of the Police
Station, Kannur raising defamatory allegations
against the petitioner and it has affected his
reputation among his friends, relatives and public
and therefore he is entitled to a damages for
Rs.10,000/-. Respondent resisted the claim
justifying the allegations on the ground that they
are true.
2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of appellant
as PW1, respondent as DW1 and witness as DW2 and
R.S.A.623/07 2
Exts.A1 to A7 dismissed the suit holding that
though it was unwarranted on the part of the
appellant to state in the reply the allegations
raised, the gist of the substance is correct and in
such circumstance, it is justifiable by truth and
therefore appellant is not entitled to the damages
sought for. Appellant challenged the decree and
judgment before Sub Court, Tellicherry in
A.S.217/2003. Learned Sub Judge on reappreciation
of evidence confirmed the findings of learned
Munsiff and dismissed the suit. It is challenged
in the second appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was
heard.
4. The argument of learned counsel is that
courts below having found that allegations in
Ext.A2 are defamatory, in the absence of
sufficient evidence to prove that allegations are
R.S.A.623/07 3
true, were not justified in dismissing the suit and
therefore the decree and judgment are to be set
aside.
5. Learned counsel argued that allegations
raised in Ext.A2 reply are per se defamatory and
every man has a reputation and evidence of PW1
establish that his reputation has been adversely
affected by the defamatory statements in Ext.A1 and
therefor courts below should have granted the
decree.
6. On hearing learned counsel, I do not find
any substantial question of law involved in the
case. The question whether allegations in Ext.A1
are defamatory and whether they are justifiable by
truth or not depend on appreciaiton of the
allegations in Ext.A2 and the evidence. Trial
court on appreciating the evidence found it against
the appellant. The first appellate court
R.S.A.623/07 4
reappreciated the evidence and confirmed the
findings of the learned Munsiff. I do not find
that appreciation of evidence perverse warranting
reappreciation of evidence in exercise of the
powers of this court under seciton 100 of Code of
Civil Procedure.
Appeal is dismissed in limine.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006