{"id":7432,"date":"1972-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972"},"modified":"2015-11-02T12:22:16","modified_gmt":"2015-11-02T06:52:16","slug":"g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972","title":{"rendered":"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected … on 4 September, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected … on 4 September, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2609, \t\t 1973 SCR (2)\t 40<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nG.   NARASIMHAN & ORS.\tETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT. V. CHOKKAPPA(will connected appeals)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/09\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 2609\t\t  1973 SCR  (2)\t 40\n 1972 SCC  (2) 680\n\n\nACT:\nIndian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 499 Expln. 2 and Code\nof  Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) s. 198-Defamation  of\ncollection  of persons-When member of the body can  complain\nas aggrieved person.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Dravida Kazhagam sponsored and organised a\t conference.\nBut  the  conference  was  a  separate\tbody  with  its\t own\norganisation and office where correspondence relating to  it\nwas received and dealt with, and it had its own Secretaries.\nThe conference passeda number of resolutions. The  draft\nof one of the resolutions was put in shape by the respondent\nWho  was  a member of the Dravida Kazhagam. It\twas  however\nmoved  by the president of the conference and passed by\t the\nconference. The appellants were either editors or publishers\nof  newspapers in which a news item was published about\t the\nconference.   The news item however did not  mention  either\nthe Dravida Kazhagam or the respondent or any sponsor of the\nresolution  eithter  by name or otherwise.   The  respondent\nwrote  letter  to  the appellants,  signing  and  describing\nhimself'  as  Chairman\tof the Reception  Committee  of\t the\nconference, containing that the news item had distorted\t the\nresolution  and\t asked\tthem to\t publish  a  correction\t and\nclarification.\tA few days later, a lawyers notice was sent\nto  the appellants in which the respondent  complained\tthat\nthe news item was defamatory and had tarnished the image  of\nthe  conference\t and demanded an apology.   Thereafter,\t the\nrespondent  filed a complaint under Ss. 500 and 501,  I.P.C.\nagainst\t the appellants as they did not tender any  apology.\non the basis of the complaint and the evidence he  recorded,\nthe  Magistrate\t issued process.  The appellants  moved\t the\nHigh  Court  under s. 561 A, Cr-.  P.C.,  for  quashing\t the\nproceedings.   They  contended that the respondent  was\t not ,in\naggrieved part\\, within the meaning of s.  198,\t Cr.P.\nC.,  that  he  had filed the complaint in  his\tcapacity  as\nChairman  of the Reception Committee of the  conference\t and\nnot  in his individual capacity, that in the absence of\t any\nreference  to  him in the news item he had no  cause  for  a\ncomplaint, and that the conference, 'being an undefined\t and\nan  amorphous body, the respondent, is a member or  part  of\nsuch  body, could not lodge the complaint.  The High  Court,\nhowever,  held\tthat  the respondent was  a  member  of\t the\nDravida\t Kazhagam which was an identifiable group,  and\t was\ntherefore  a person aggrieved within the meaning of s.\t198,\nCr.P.C.\nAllowing  the  appeal  to  this\t Court\tand  quashing\t;the\nproceedings taken by\t the Magistrate,\nHELD:  (1)  Under s. 198, Cr.P.C., no  Magistrate  can\ttake\ncognizance of  an  offence  falling inter alia\tunder  Chap.\nXXI, I.P.C., that is, ss. 499 to   502,\t   except    on\t   a\ncomplaint  made by some persons aggrieved by  such  offence.\nThe section is mandatory, so 'that, if a Magistrate were  to\ntake cognizance of the offence of defamation on a  complaint\nfiled  by one who is not an aggrieved person the  trial\t and\nconviction of the accused would be void and illegal. [48A-C]\n(2)Section  499, I.P.C., defines defamation and lays  down\nthat whoever by words, either spoken or intended to be\tread\nor by signs etc., makes\n41\nor publishes any imputation concerning any person  intending\nto  harm  or knowing or having reason to  believe  that\t the\nimputation  will harm the reputation of such person is\tsaid\nto  defame that person.\t Explanation  2 to the section\tlays\ndown that it may amount to defamation to make an  imputation\nconcerning  a  company or an association  or  collection  of\npersons.   But\tsuch  a collection of  persons\tmust  be  an\nidentifiable  body,  so, that, it is possible  to  say\twith\ndefiniteness   that  a\tgroup  of  particular  persons\t ,is\ndistinguished from the rest, of the community, was  defamed.\nTherefore, in a case where Explanation 2 is resorted to\t the\nidentify of the company or the association or the collection\nof persons must be established so as to be relatable to\t the\ndefamatory words or imputations. If a well defined class  is\ndefamed,  every particular member' of that class can file  a\ncomplaint even if the defamatory imputation does not mention\nhim by name. [48C-G, 50C, G-H]\n(3)The\ttest whether the members of a class deamed are\tor\nnot  would  not\t be apt in  a  criminal\t prosecution  where,\ntechnically  speaking, it is not by the persons injured\t but\nby the state that criminal proceedings are carried on and  a\ncomplaint  can.\t lie in a case of libel against a  class  of\npersons\t  provided  always  that  such\tin  class   is\t not\nindeterminate or 'indefinite but, a definite one.  There  is\nno  difference in principle between this rule of the  Common\nLaw of England and the rule laid down in Explanation 2 to s.\n499 I.P.C. 150A-C]\nSahib Singh Mehra v. U.P., [1965] 2 S.C.R. 823, followed.\nTek Chand v. R. K. Karanjea, [1969] Cr.\t L.J. 536, approved.\nKnupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd., [1944] A.C.\t116.\nUllah Ansari v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1935 All. 743, referred to.\n(4)But\tin  the present case, the conference  was  a  body\ndistinct   from\t the  Dravida  Kazhagam\t party.\t  That\t the\nconference  was organised by the party would not  mean\tthat\nboth  were  the same or that the members of  the  party\t any\nthose  of the conference or those who, attended it were\t the\nsame.\tIn  fact, the principal function  of  the  reception\ncommittee  would be to enroll members of the conference\t and\ncollect\t funds to defray its expenses.\tThe evidence of\t the\nrespondent  also indicated that the conference was  attended\nnot  only by members of the Dravida Kazhagam party but\talso\nby outsiders. it is therefore wrong to identify one with the\nother  or  to say that a defamation of the conference  as  a\nclass or collection of persons was defamation of the Dravida\nKazhagam party.\t The news item complained of clearly  stated\nthat  the  resolution was by the conference and not  by\t the\nDravida\t Kazhagam.   The respondent in his letters  made  no\ngrievance  that\t the  Drivida Kazhagam\tsuffered  injury  in\nreputation or otherwise by 'the alleged distortion.His\tcase\nthroughout  was\t that  the  publication\t had  tarnished\t the\nimage.not  of the Dravida Kazhagam, but of  the\t conference.\n[51C-G;\t 52A-B]\n(6) Therefore, the High Court missed the realissue.  Whether\nthe  Dravida Kazhagam was an identifiable group or  not\t was\nbeside\tthe point, for, what had to be decided\twas  whether\nthe  conference was a determinate and identifiable body\t so\nthat  defamatory  words used in relation to  the  resolution\nwould  be defamation of the individuals who composed  it.and\nthe  respondent,  as one of such individuals could  maintain\ntile complaint. f.@ 2C-F]\n(7)  The  conference  clearly was not an  identifiable\tor\ndefinitive  body so that all those who attended it could  be\nsaid  to  be its constituents, who. if\tthe  conference\t was\ndefamed, would, in their turn, be said to be defamed.\n42\nIt  is\timpossible  to\thave any definite  idea\t as  to\t its\ncomposition,  the number of persons who attended, the  ideas\nand ideologies to which they subscribed, and whether all  of\nthem  positively agreed to the resolution in question.\t The\nevidence  was  that  the  person  presiding  read  out\t the\nresolution and because no one got up to oppose it was  taken\nas approved by all.[52F-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.\t 18,
\n53 and 54 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nNovember 2, 1971 of the Madras High Court in Criminal  Misc.
\nPetition Nos. 2093, 2089, 2091 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
M.   Srinivasa Gopalan, T. S. Rangarajan and Saroja  Gopala-
\nKrishnan, for the appellants (in Cr.  A. No. 18\/72).
\nFrank Anthony and W. C. Chopra, for the respondent in Cr.
\nA.   No. 18\/72.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C. Chagla, A. R. Ramanathan and Saroja  Gopalakrishnan,
\nfor the appellants (in Cr.  As.\t Nos. 53 and 54\/72).
\nS.   Doraiswami\t and A. Subhashini, for the  respondent\t (in
\nCr.  As. Nos. 53 & 54\/72).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the court was delivered by
\nSHELAT,\t J.-These appeals, founded on special  leave,  are
\ndirected against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of
\nthe  High Court of Madras dismissing the applications  filed
\nby the appellants for quashing charges under ss. 500 and 501
\nof  the\t Penal\tCode framed by\tthe  Presidency\t Magistrate,
\nMadras.\t The common question raised in all these appeals  is
\nwhether\t the  respondent (the original complainant)  was  an
\naggrieved  person  competent  to file  the  said  complaints
\nwithin\tthe  meaning  of  S. 198 of  the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure  read\t with s. 499, Explanation (2) of  the  Penal
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
The   complaint\t  came\tto  be\tfiled\tin   the   following
\ncircumstances
\nThe  Dravida Kazhagam, a party having a platform for  social
\nreforms,  has,\taccording to counsel for the  respondent,  a
\nmembership  of\tabout  4000  persons  in  Madras  city\t and
\nelsewhere.   The aims and objects of the party are to  bring
\nabout social reforms and in particular to eradicate  certain
\ncustoms\t and practices, which, according to  its  promoters,
\nare sheer superstitions.  The party sponsored and  organised
\na conference, which held its sessions on January 23 and\t 24,
\n1971.\tThe conference passed a number of  resolutions,\t the
\none  relevant for these appeals was, as translated  in\tEng-
\nlish, by the High Court, as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  should  not\tbe made\t an  offence  for  a
\n\t      person’s wife to desire another man.”\n<\/p>\n
43<\/span><\/p>\n
The object of this resolution, according to the\t respondent,
\nwas to, achieve total emancipation of women and to establish
\nabsolute equality in social life between men and women.
\nThe  appellants\t are  and  were at  the\t material  time\t the
\neditors,  and  publishers  of three  daily  newspapers,\t the
\nDinmani,  the Hindu and the Indian Express, all printed\t and
\npublished  in Madras.  In the issues of January 25  and\t 26,
\n1971  there appeared in the Hindu, as also in the other\t two
\npapers, a news item under the caption “Demonstration against
\nthe  Obscene  Tableau”\tin  which  among  other\t things\t was
\npublished the following :\n<\/p>\n
.lm15
\n“The   Conference   passed  a  resolution   requesting\t the
\nGovernment  to\ttake  suitable steps to\t see  that  coveting
\nanother man’s wife is made an offence under the Indian Penal
\nCode.”\n<\/p>\n
The  news item emanated from a report from a  correspondent,
\ndated  January 24, 1971.  The news item reported that  about
\n300  persons had staged a black flag  demonstration  against
\nthe  procession\t taken\tout  in\t connection  with  the\tsaid
\nconference  in\twhich  tableau alleged\tto  be\tobscene\t and
\ndepicting  certain  Hindu deities and  mythological  figures
\nformed\tpart.  The processionists shouted anti-God  slogans,
\nwhich  were  replied to by the\tdemonstrators  with  counter
\nslogans.   The news item further reported that E.  V.  Rama-
\nswami Naicker, the leader of the Dravida Kazhagam, seated in
\na  tractor,  was  at the rear of the  procession.   He\talso
\npresided  over the said conference which was inaugurated  by
\none C.D. Naidu.\t The respondent’s case was that what came to
\nbe.  published\tin  the said news item was  not\t the  actual
\nresolution passed by the conference, but the reverse of\t it.
\nBut the news item stated that it was the conference ‘and not
\nthe Dravida Kazhagam which had passed the resolution set out
\nin it as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
On January 28, 1971, the respondent, signing as the chairman
\nof  the reception committee of the said\t conference,  called
\nupon  the  editor of the Hindu to publish a  correction\t and
\nclarification stating that the resolution published in\tthat
\ndaily  was  distorted  version of  the\tresolution  actually
\npassed by the conference, that the resolution passed by\t the
\nconference was that “it should not be made an offence for  a
\nperson’s  wife\tto desire another man”, and not that  a\t man
\ncoveting  another man’s wife should not be an  offence,\t and
\nthat  those who were aware of the opinions of the said E  V.
\nRamaswami  Naicker  would find that the\t resolution  was  in
\nkeeping with his views, namely, that marriage was a contract
\nterminable  at\tthe  instance of either\t party\tand  not  an
\ninterminable sacrament, and lastly, that the resolution\t was
\nintended  to  highlight\t the  disabilities  of\twomen  which
\nprevented them
\n44<\/span>
\n,from  attaining their full stature.  On February 1971,\t the
\nHindu  published the said clarification as demanded  by\t the
\nrespondent under the caption “Salem Conference\tResolutions”
\ntogether with the version of its own representative at Salem
\naccording  to which the resolution passed by the  conference
\nwas the one ,Published in the Hindu On February 1, 1971, the
\nrespondent, by his Advocate’s letter, called upon the editor
\nto publish the correct text of the resolution starting\tthat
\nwhat was published in the Hindu was “not only a travesty  of
\ntruth but also highly defamatory so as to tarnish the  image
\nof the conference”, of whose reception committee he was\t the
\nchairman and called upon the editor to express an apology.
\nNo  such apology having been tendered, the respondent  filed
\ncomplaints  on\tFebruary  9, 1971 against  the\teditors\t and
\npublishes of the three dailies under ss. 500 and 501 of\t the
\nPenal Code in the Court of the Chief Presidency\t Magistrate,
\nMadras.\t  In  these  complaints,  the  respondent  described
\nhimself\t as an important member of the Dravida Kazhagam\t and
\nof  the\t Self-respect Movement organised by that  party,  as
\nalso  an  ardent  disciple of its leader,  the\tsaid  E.  V.
\nRamaswami  Naicker.   He  further stated  that\tthe  Dravida
\nKazhagam   had\torganised  the\tsaid  conference   for\t the
\neradication  of\t superstitious\tbeliefs,  that\the  was\t the
\nchairman  of  its reception committee, that  the  conference
\npassed several resolutions, one of which was the  resolution
\nadvocating  that it should not be an offence for a  person’s
\nwife to ;desire another man, that he was one of the  members
\nresponsible “‘for sponsoring and piloting that\tresolution”,
\nthat  the  conference  was attended “by a  large  number  of
\nleaders,  members, followers. sympathizers of the  Kazhagam,
\nbesides a large number of public at large, occupying  varied
\nstrata of the society” and that the Hindu published a  wrong
\nversion of the said resolution implying that the  resolution
\nadvocated  adultery, an offence under the Penal\t Code.\t The
\ncomplaint further stated that the news item published in the
\nnewspaper was quite contrary to the actual resolution passed
\nby  the conference, that it contained “imputations  ,on\t the
\nsponsors of the resolution” by publishing the resolution ,in
\na   distorted  and  false  form\t thereby  lowering  in\t the
\nestimation  of\tthose  Who  read  the  said  news  them\t the
\ncomplainant  and other members of the party responsible\t for
\nsponsoring  the\t resolution. making out by  such  imputation
\nthat  the  sponsors of the resolution “have stooped  to\t the
\nlevel  of passing a resolution requesting the Government  to
\nlegalese adultery which will tend to degrade social life”.To
\nthe  complaint\twas attached a list of witnesses.   who,  we
\nwere told  by the respoildent’s counsel, were all   bers  of
\nthe  Dravida Kazhagain.\n<\/p>\n
It  may be recalled that though the complaint  alleged\tthat
\nthe  impugned  news item contained imputations\tagainst\t the
\nspon-\n<\/p>\n
4 5
\nsors  of  the said resolution, no such\timputations,  either
\nagainst\t the respondent or the sponsors of  the\t resolution,
\nare to be found therein.  A persual of the news items  shows
\nthat  it  concerned. itself with the  protest  demonstration
\nagainst\t the procession taken, out on that occasion and\t the
\ntableau,presented  in  the  procession,\t the  resolution  in
\nquestion  passed at the conference held there,after and\t the
\nfact  of  the said E. V. Ramaswami Naicker  having  presided
\nover that conference.  The news item, thus, did not  mention
\neither the respondent or any of the alleged sponsors of the.
\nsaid resolution either by name or otherwise,
\nIn  his\t sworn statement before the Magistrate at  the\ttime
\nwhen  he  presented the complaint on February 9,  1971,\t the
\nrespondent himself stated that the conference was  organised
\nby the Dravida Kazhagam and that it was the conference which
\nhad passed the said resolution.\t He, however, insisted\tthat
\nthe  impugned news item was motivated and malacious and\t was
\ncalculated  to\taffect the leader of the  movement  and\t its
\nmembers,  including  himself  and was per se  defamatory  of
\nthe-  persons  who  sponsored the  resolution,\tnamely,\t the
\nmembers\t of the Dravida Kazhagam.  In the evidence  he\tgave
\nbefore\tthe  Magistrate\t on May\t 22,  1971,  the  respondent
\nclaimed\t that  it  was\the, who,  as  the  chairman  of\t the
\nreception  committee of the conference, had scrutinised\t and
\ngiven  shape to the draft resolution sent at the  conference
\nfor being-moved thereat, that the said draft resolution\t was
\nsent by one Pariaswami, the Secretary of the Trichy District
\nbranch of the Dravida Kazhagam, and which he had settled  in
\nthe  abridged  form in which the conference on\tJanuary\t 24,
\n1971  ultimately passed unanimously.  He also  deposed\tthat
\nthe conference consisted of “comrades of our movement, other
\nsocial\treform minded sympathisers and about  5000)  women”.
\nIn regard to the conference and its set up, he said’ that on
\nDecember  13,  1970 a meeting was held\tfor  organising\t the
\nconference.   At that meeting one or two  persons  suggested
\nthat  he should be the chairman of the reception  committee,
\nand  that  was\thow he was selected as\tthe  chairman.\t One
\nPachaimuthu and R. Natesan were appointed secretaries of the
\nconference  and they were responsible for  the\tproceedings.
\nThe object of the conference was “generally to do away\twith
\nall superstitious beliefs relating to religion and  relating
\nto  society”. The conference had its own office and  it\t was
\nthere  that  correspondence relating to its work  was  dealt
\nwith.\tHe  claimed that as the chairman  of  the  reception
\ncommittee, the entire responsibility for the conference\t was
\nhis but admitted that there was no record to show either his
\nselection    or\t  his\tfunctions   and\t  duties   or\t his
\nresponsibilities.  Asked about the procedure followed at the
\nconference,   he   said\t  that\t “nobody   spoke.   proposed
\nindividually  each resolution or seconded”.   Regarding\t the
\nresolution in-\n<\/p>\n
46<\/span><\/p>\n
question, he said that “after the President Pariyar proposed
\nnobody announced opposition to the resolution.\tThe  meaning
\nis, that all approved”.\n<\/p>\n
Two facts clearly emerge from this evidence, (1) that though
\nthe conference was organised by the Dravida Kazhagam, it was
\na  separate body with its own Organisation and office  where
\ncorrespondence\trelating to it was received and\t dealt\twith
\nand  had its own secretaries, and (2) that though the  draft
\nof the resolution was prepared and sent to the conference by
\nthe  secretary of the Tricy District branch and was  put  in
\nshape  by the respondent, it was moved by the president\t of
\nthe  conference\t and  passed by\t the  conference  which,  as
\ntestified  by the respondent, ;consisted of members  of\t the
\nDravida\t  Kazhagam,  sympathisers  of  its   social   reform
\nprogramme,  other  social  reform  leaders  and\t ,outsiders,
\nincluding  about  5000 women.  The resolution was  thus\t the
\nresolution  of\tthe  conference\t and  not  of  the   Dravida
\nKazhagam,  though  it  was organised  by  that\tparty.\t The
\nresolution having been moved by the President himself, there
\nwas, also ,no question of the respondent or any other person
\nhaving piloted it at the conference.\n<\/p>\n
The  Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint and the\tevi-
\ndence  he recorded, decided to issue process and to  proceed
\nwith  the  trial.   The appellants  in\tall,  these  appeals
\nthereupon  approached the High.\t Court under s. 561A of\t the
\nCode   of   Criminal  Procedure\t for   quashing\t  the\tsaid
\nproceedings.   The  appellants’ main contention\t before\t the
\nHigh  Court  was that the respondent was  not  an  aggrieved
\nparty within the meaning of s. 198 of the Code, that he\t had
\nfiled the complaint in his capacity as the chairman. of\t the
\nreception  committee  of  the conference  and  not  in\t‘his
\nindividual capacity, that in the absence of any reference to
\nhim in the said news item he had no cause for complaint, and
\nthat  the  conference being an undefined  and  an  amorphous
\nbody,  the  respondent as a member or part of  such  a\tbody
\ncould not lodge the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the said
\napplications, rejected the said contention in the following
\nwords :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Dravida  Kazhagam  is  an\tidentifiable
\n\t      group,  The  complainant is a member  of\tthis
\n\t      Kazhagam.\t   He  was  the\t Chairman   of\t the
\n\t      Reception Committee in the conference.  He  is
\n\t      active member of the Dravida Kazhagam.  He was
\n\t      one  of  those who piloted and  sponsored\t the
\n\t      resolution.    Certainly\t be  is\t  a   person
\n\t      aggrieved
\n\t      47<\/span>
\n\t      within  the  meaning  of section\t19B  of\t the
\n\t      Criminal procedure Code.\tThe complaint by him
\n\t      is competent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  statement in this para that the respondent piloted\t and
\nsponsored   the\t  resolution  in  question   was   factually
\nincorrect,  as the respondent’s evidence itself showed\tthat
\nthe resolution was moved not by him, but by the President of
\nthe  conference, who read it out and as no one\topposed,  it
\nwas  taken  to have been approved by all.  The,\t only  thing
\nwhich the respondent claimed to have done as the chairman of
\nthe  reception\tcommittee was to give shape  to\t the,  draft
\nresolution  by abridging it.  The respondent may  have\tbeen
\ninterested  in the resolution and its being passed, but\t the
\nresolution  certainly was neither moved nor piloted by\thim.
\nIndeed, if any one could be said to have piloted it, it\t was
\nthe   president\t  of  the  conference.\t  Furthermore,\t the
\nresolution  was of the conference and the only\tcontribution
\nof  the respondent to it was his having given shape  to\t the
\noriginal draft.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellants seriously challenged the correct-
\nness of the paragraph from the High Court’s judgment  quoted
\nabove, that being the really operative and decisive part  of
\nthe judgment, firstly, on the ground that those observations
\nwere  not  in consonance with s. 198 of the Code  even\twhen
\nread with s.   499,   Expl  (2)\t of  the  Penal\t Code,\t and
\nsecondly, on the ground of    the failure of the High  Court
\nto perceive the separate entities of\tthe Dravida Kazhagam
\nand the conference and its omission to\trealise\t that\tthe,
\nresolution  was the resolution of the Conference and not  of
\nthe Dravida Kazhagam.  The news item in question referred to
\nthe  conference\t and  not  to  the  Dravida  Kazhagam,\t and
\ntherefore, if anybody was defamed by the said news item,  it
\nwas  the conference and not the ‘Dravida Kazhagam which\t had
\nonly  organised that conference.  Mr. Frank Anthony, on\t the
\nother  hand, urged that though it was the, conference  which
\nhad passed the resolution and though the news item  referred
\nto  that conference and not to the Dravida Kazhagam and\t the
\nrespondent  was\t not mentioned or referred  to\ttherein,  in
\nsubstance  and in effect it was the Dravida  Kazhagam  which
\nwas defamed, for, it was that party which had organised the
\nconference  and\t sponsored the resolutions  passed  thereat.
\nTherefore, the respondent, as a leading member of that party
\nand  the  chairman of the reception committee,\tcould  claim
\nthat the defamatory imputations in the said news item  were,
\nrelatable  to  him  and the other  members  of\tthe  Dravida
\nKazhagam,  and\the  was consequently entitled  to  file\t the
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
On these contentions, the principal question for  determina-
\ntion  is  whether  the respondent could be  said  to  be  an
\naggrieved  person entitled to maintain the complaint  within
\nthe meaning of
\n48<\/span>
\ns.   198  of  the  Code.  That section\tlays  down  that  no
\nmagistrate shall take cognizance of an offence falling inter
\nalia  under Ch.\t XXI of the Penal Code (that is, ss. 499  to\n<\/p>\n
502) except upon a complaint made by some persons  aggrieved
\nof such offence.  Sec. 198, thus, lays down an exception  to
\nthe  general rule that a complaint ‘can be filed by  anybody
\nwhether\t he is an aggrieved person or not and modifies\tthat
\nrule  by  permitting  only an aggrieved\t person\t to  move  a
\nmagistrate   in\t cases\tof  defamation.\t  The\tsection\t  is
\nmandatory,  so that if a magistrate were to take  cognizance
\nof  the, offence of defamation on a complaint filed  by\t one
\nwho is not an aggrieved person, the ;trial and conviction of
\nan  accused in such a case by the magistrate would  be\tvoid
\nand illegal.\n<\/p>\n
Prima  facie,  therefore, if s. 193 of the Code were  to  be
\nnoticed\t by itself, the complaint in the present case  would
\nbe  unsustainable, since the news item in question  did\t not
\nmention\t the  respondent nor did it contain  any  defamatory
\nimputation against him individually.  Sec. 499 of the  Penal
\nCode,  which defines defamation, laid down that\t whoever  by
\nwords, either spoken or intended to be read or by signs etc.
\nmakes or publishes any imputation  concerning  any person,
\nintending to harm or knowing or having\treason\tto   believe
\nthat the imputation will harm he reputation  of such person,
\nis  said  to defame that person.  This part of\tthe  section
\nmakes  defamation  in respect of an individual\tan  offence.
\nBut Explanation (2) to the section lays down the rifle\tthat
\nit may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning
\na  company  or an association or collection  of\t persons  as
\nsuch.\tA  defamatory  imputation against  a  collection  of
\npersons thus falls within the definition of defamation.\t The
\nlanguageage  of\t the  Explanation is  wide,  and  therefore,
\nbesides a company or\t an  association, any collection  of
\npersons would be covered by it\t   But such a collection  of
\npersons must be an identifiable body so that it is  possible
\nto say with definiteness that a group of particular persons,
\nas  distinguished.  from  the rest  of\tthe  community,\t was
\ndefamed\t Therefore, in a case where Explanation (2)  is\t re-
\nsorted to, the identity of the company or the association or
\nthe  collection of persons must be established so as  to  be
\nrelatable  to the defamatory words or imputations.  Where  a
\nwriting inveigh,,,, against mankind in a general. or against
\na  particular  order  of men, e.g., men of own,\t it  is\t no
\nlibel.\t It must descend to particulars and individual-,  to
\nmake  it a libel(1).  In England also. criminal\t proceedings
\nwould lie in the case of libel against a class provided such
\na  class  is  not indefinite, e.g. men\tof  science.  but  a
\ndefinite one. such as, the clergy of the diocese of  Burham,
\nthe
\n(1)  (1699)3  Balk 224, cited in Ratanlal and Dhirajlal\t Law
\nof Crimes (23nd ed.) 1317.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     49<\/span><\/p>\n
justices  of  the peace for the county\tof  Middlesex.\t(see
\nKenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law (19th ed.) 235.  If a well-
\ndefined\t class is defamed, every particular member  of\tthat
\nclass\tcan  file  a  cornplaint  even\tif  the\t  defamatory
\nimputation in question does not mention him by name.
\nIn  this  connection,  counsel\tfor  the  appellants  leaned
\nheavily on Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd.(1). The
\npassage\t printed and published by the respondents and  which
\nwas the basis of the section there read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The quislings on whom Hitler flatters himself
\n\t      he can build a pro-German movement within\t the
\n\t      Soviet Union are an emigre group called  Hlado
\n\t      Russ or Young Russia.  They are a. minute body
\n\t      professing  a pure Fascist ideology  who\thave
\n\t      long  sought  a suitable Fuehrer-I  know\twith
\n\t      what success.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  appellant,\t a Russian resident in London,\tbrought\t the
\naction\talleging that the aforesaid words had been  falsely
\nand  maliciously  printed  and\tpublished  of  him  by\t the
\nrespondents.   The evidence was that the Young Russia  party
\nhad a total membership of 2000, that the headquarters of the
\nparty  were  first  in Paris but in  1940  were\t shifted  to
\nAmerica.   The evidence, however, showed that the  appellant
\nhad  joined the party in 1928, that in 1935 he acted as\t the
\nrepresentative of the party and as the head of the branch in
\nEngland,  which had 24 members.\t The appellant had  examined
\nwitnesses, all of whom had said that when they read the said
\narticle their minds went up to the appellant.  The House  of
\nLords  rejected\t the action, Lord Simon saying that  was  an
\nessential  element of the cause of action in a libel  action
\nthat  the  words complained of should be  published  of\t the
\nplaintiff,  that where he was not named, the test  would  be
\nwhether\t the words would reasonably lead  people  acquainted
\nwith  him to the conclusion that he was the person  referred
\nto.   The  question whether they did so in  fact  would\t not
\narise  if  they could not in law be regarded as\t capable  of
\nreferring  to  him, and that was not so as  the\t imputations
\nwere  in regard respect of the party which was in Paris\t and
\nAmerica.   Lord\t Porter\t agreed with the  dismissal  of\t the
\naction\tbut based his decision on the ground that  the\tbody
\ndefamed had a membership of 2000, which was considerable,  a
\nfact  vital  in considering whether the\t words\tin  question
\nreferred in fact to the appellant.  The principle laid\tdown
\nhere  was that there can be no civil action for libel if  it
\nrelates\t to  a\tclass of persons who are  too  numerous\t and
\nunascertainable to join as plaintiffs.\tA single one of them
\ncould  maintain such an action only if the words  complained
\nof  were published ” of the plaintiff”, that is to  say,  if
\nthe  words  were  capable of a conclusion that\the  was\t the
\nperson referred to. (see Gatley on
\n(1) [1944] A.C. 116.\n<\/p>\n
348SupCI\/73
\n50<\/span>
\nLibel and Slander (6th ed.) 288.  Mr. Anthony, however,\t was
\nright  in submitting that the test whether the members of  a
\nclass  defamed\tare numerous or not would not be  apt  in  a
\ncriminal prosecution where technically speaking it is not by
\nthe   persons  injured\tbut  by\t the  state  that   criminal
\nproceedings are carried on and a complaint can lie in a case
\nof  libel  against a class of persons provided\talways\tthat
\nsuch  a\t class\tis not indeterminate  or  indefinite  but  a
\ndefinite  one.\tKenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law (19th\ted.)\n<\/p>\n
235.   It is true that where there is an  express  statutory
\nprovision, as in s. 499, Expl. (2), the rules of the  Common
\nLaw  of\t England  cannot  be  applied.\t But  there  is\t  no
\ndifference  in\tprinciple  between the\trule  laid  down  in
\nExplanation (2) to s. 499 and the law applied in such  cases
\nin England.  When, therefore, Expl. (2) to s. 499 talks of a
\ncollection  of\tpersons as capable of  being  defamed,\tsuch
\ncollection of persons must mean a definite and a determinate
\nbody.\n<\/p>\n
This was the construction of Expl. (2) to s. 499 adopted  in
\nSahib  Singh Mehra v. U.P.(1) and which guided the  decision
\nin  that  case.\t  The article complained of  there  was\t one
\nprinted\t and published in the appellant’s  newspaper  called
\nKaliyug of Aligarh which contained the following :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “How  the\t justice stands at a distance  as  a
\n\t      helpless\tspectator  of  the show\t as  to\t the
\n\t      manner  in which the illicit bribe money\tfrom
\n\t      plaintiffs  and  defendants  enters  into\t the
\n\t      pockets  of public prosecutors  and  assistant
\n\t      public prosecutors and the extent to, which it
\n\t      reaches and to which use it is put.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  Court held that the prosecuting staff of\tAligarh\t and
\neven  the prosecuting staff in the State of U.P.  formed  an
\nidentifiable  group  or “collection of persons”\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  s. 499, Expl. (2) in the sense that  one  could
\nwith certainty say that a group of persons has been  defamed
\nas  distinguished  from\t the  rest  of\tthe  community,\t and
\ntherefore,  a complaint by the Public Prosecutor and  eleven
\nAssistant  Public  Prosecutors was  a  competent  complaint.
\nFollowing  the\ttest laid down in this\tdecision.  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Allahabad in Tek Chand v. R. K. Karanjia  (2\theld
\nthat the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak was a definite and an  iden-
\ntifiable  body,\t that defamatory  imputations  regarding  it
\nwould be defamation within the meaning of s. 499, Exp.\t(2),
\nthat such imputations would be defamation of the  individual
\nmembers\t of  that body or class and that a complaint  by  an
\nindividual member of such a body was maintainable. (see also
\nthe dictum of Kendall, J.     in   Wahid  Ullah\t Ansari\t  v.
\nEmperor(3).\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1965] 2 S.C.R. 823, 828.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1969] Cr.\tL.J,536.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. 1935 All. 743.\n<\/p>\n
51<\/span><\/p>\n
This  being  the position in law, the  question\t upon  which
\nthese  appeals\tmust be decided is: which was the  class  or
\nbody  in  respect of which defamatory words  were  used\t and
\nwhether that body was a definite and an identifiable body or
\nclass  so  that the imputations in question can be  said  to
\nrelate\tto its individual components enabling an  individual
\nmember of it to maintain a complaint ?\n<\/p>\n
The High Court, after citing Tek Chand’s case(1) went on to
\nsay  that  the Dravida Kazhagam was an\tidentifiable  group,
\nthat the respondent was an active member of that body,\tthat
\nhe  was also the chairman of the reception committee of\t the
\nconference  and\t that he was one of those  who\tpiloted\t and
\nsponsored  the\tresolution,  which was\tsaid  to  have\tbeen
\nwrongly\t reproduced  and  distorted  in\t the  news  item  in
\nquestion.   Apart  from\t the fact already  mentioned  by  us
\nearlier\t that neither the complaint nor the evidence of\t the
\nrespondent indicated that the resolution was piloted by him,
\nthe  news  item nowhere referred to or\teven  mentioned\t the
\nDravida\t Kazhagam.  As already pointed out,  the  conference
\nwas  a\tbody  distinct\tfrom  that  party,  having  its\t own
\nOrganisation,  its  own\t secretaries  who  dealt  with\t the
\ncorrespondence to and by the conference and its own  office
\nwhere its work was conducted.  No doubt, the conference\t was
\norganised  by the Dravida Kazhagam, but that would not\tmean
\nthat  both were the same or that the members of the  Dravida
\nKazhagam  and those of the conference or those who  attended
\nit  were  the same.  Indeed, the principal function  of\t the
\nreception  committee  would  be to  enroll  members  of\t the
\nconference  and thus collect funds to defray  its  expenses.
\nIn  fact, the evidence of the respondent indicated that\t the
\nconference  was\t attended  not only by the  members  of\t the
\nDravida Kazhagam but also by outsiders who included as\tmany
\nas 5000 women.\tIt is therefore, wrong to identify one\twith
\nthe  other or to say that defamation of the conference as  a
\nclass  or  collection of persons was the defamation  of\t the
\nDravida Kazhagam.  That was not and indeed could not be\t the
\ncase of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The news item complained of clearly stated that the  resolu-
\ntion was passed by the conference and not by the Dravida Ka-
\nzhagain.  In his very first letter, dated January 28,  1971,
\nwhich  the  respondent\tsigned\tdescribing  himself  as\t the
\nchairman of the reception committee and not as, an important
\nmember\tof the Dravida Kazhagam, the  respondent  complained
\nthat  the news item had distorted the resolution  passed  by
\nthe   conference  and  asked  the  editor  to  publish\t his
\n“correction and clarification of that resolution.  There  is
\nno grievance there that the Dravida Kazhagam suffered injury
\nin reputation or otherwise by that alleged
\n(1)  [1969] Cr.\t L.J. 536.\n<\/p>\n
52<\/span><\/p>\n
distortion.  In his advocates letter dated February 1, 1971,
\nthe respondent’s complaint was that the news item was highly
\ndefamatory and had tarnished the image of the conference  of
\nwhose reception committee he was the chairman.\tIn his evid-
\nence  before the Magistrate also as clearly stated that\t the
\nresolution was the resolution moved by the president of\t the
\ncommittee  and\tpassed by the conference.   Thus,  his\tcase
\nthroughout  was that the publication of the said  resolution
\nreported  in  the  said news item in a\tdistorted  form\t had
\ntarnished  the image not of the Dravida Kazhagam but of\t the
\nconference.\n<\/p>\n
That  being  so, the High Court completely missed  the\treal
\nissue, viz., whether the conference was a determinate and an
\nidentifiable body so that defamatory words used in  relation
\nto  the resolution passed by it would be defamation  of\t the
\nindividuals who composed it, and the respondent, as one such
\nindividuals  and chairman of its reception  committee  could
\nmaintain  a  complaint\tunder  s. 500  of  the\tPenal  Code.
\nWhether\t the Dravida Kaghagam was an identifiable  group  or
\nnot  was beside the point, for, what had to be\tdecided\t was
\nwhether\t the  conference  which\t passed\t the  resolution  in
\nquestion  and  which was said to have distorted was  such  a
\ndeterminate  body,  like the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak  in\t Tek
\nChand’s case(‘,) or the body of public prosecutors in  Sahib
\nSingh Mehra’s case(1) as to make defamation with respect  to
\nit  a cause of complaint by its individual members.  In\t our
\nview  the High Court misdirected itself by missing the\treal
\nand  true  issue arising in the applications before  it\t and
\ndeciding   an\tissue  which  did  not\tarise\tfrom   those
\napplications.  The judgment of the High Court, ‘based on an
\nextraneous issue, therefore, cannot be sustained.
\nIn  this  view\tof  the matter,\t we  would  have  ordinarily
\nremanded  the case to the High Court.  But such a  procedure
\nappears\t to be unnecessary, as in our view,  the  conference
\nwas  not such a determinate class like the one in the  cases
\nreferred  to  earlier, where complaints\t by  its  individual
\nmember or members were held maintainable.  It is  impossible
\nto have any definite idea as to its composition, the  number
\nof  persons  who attended, the ideas and the  ideologies  to
\nwhich  they subscribed, and whether all of  them  positively agree
\nd to the resolution in question.  The evidence\tsimply
\nwas that the person presiding it read out the resolution and
\nbecause no one got up to oppose it was taken as approved  of
\nby all.\t The conference clearly was not an identifiable or a
\ndefinitive  body so that all those who attended it could  be
\nsaid  to  be  its constituents who, if\tthe  conference\t was
\ndefamed, would, in their turn, be said to be defamed.
\n(1)  [1969] Cr.\t L.J. 535.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 823, 82
\n53<\/span>
\nIn these circumstances and for the reasons set out above, we
\nallow  these appeals, set side the order of the\t High  Court
\nand quash the proceedings taken out by the Magistrate on the
\nground that the respondents compaint was not competent.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeals allowed.\n54<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected … on 4 September, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2609, 1973 SCR (2) 40 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: G. NARASIMHAN & ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: T. V. CHOKKAPPA(will connected appeals) DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/09\/1972 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nG. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected ... on 4 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected ... on 4 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-02T06:52:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected … on 4 September, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-02T06:52:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972\"},\"wordCount\":4970,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972\",\"name\":\"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected ... on 4 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-02T06:52:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected … on 4 September, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected ... on 4 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected ... on 4 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-02T06:52:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected … on 4 September, 1972","datePublished":"1972-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-02T06:52:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972"},"wordCount":4970,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972","name":"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected ... on 4 September, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-02T06:52:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-narasimhan-ors-etc-vs-t-v-chokkappawill-connected-on-4-september-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa(Will Connected … on 4 September, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}