You are on page 1of 31


A.S.No. 134 /2007
Between:K.S.V. Narasimhulu

… Appellant/Plaintiff

And:B.Sambasiva Rao

… Respondent/Defendant

On appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2007 passed by the
Additional Senior and Civil Judge, Tirupati and made in
O.S. No. 72/2001

The Appellant is unsuccessful Plaintiff in the above appeal. This suit

is an action on Defamation : a Libel in a legal pleading.

The Appellant/Plaintiff K.S.V.Narasimhulu is a writer and journalist

and at the time of instilling the suit he has completed Law course and at
present he is a member of Tirupati bar. The Respondent/Defendant
B.Sambasiva Rao is a businessman. The cause of action arose on
17.04.2000 when the Respondent/Defendant made and published a
defamatory statement as part of his averments


the Plaint filed

O.S.289/2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court Tirupati
and on 03.08.2000 when the Appellant/Plaintiff issued legal notice to the
Respondent/ Defendant calling upon him to withdraw the defamatory
statement , tender apology and pay Rs.1,00,000/- One Lakh Rupees towards
damages caused to the character and reputation of the Appellant/Plaintiff as
a result of the defamatory statement. The Respondent/Defendant neither
replied to the legal notice nor complied with the claim of the
Appellant/Plaintiff and hence this suit before this Honourable Court.

All the averments in the Plaint are self-explanatory. The defamatory

statement in question is part and parcel of a legal proceeding which by itself
has been brought out by the Respondent/Defendant as Plaintiff tenant in O.S.
289/2000 with the ulterior motive of permanently squatting in House bearing
door number 339 Gali Street Tirupati even after prolonged efflux of
agreement period.

:: 2 ::
In the said suit he sought permanent injunction to retain possession of the
said house and in doing so he denied the title of it absolute
owner K.S.V.Narasimhulu , the Appellant/Plaintiff here-in. Paving way for
multiplicity of litigation he brought out the said injunction suit showing the
Appellant/Plaintiff here-in as Defendant No.2 and added up the father and
two sisters of Defendant No. 2 as Defendants 1, 3 and 4 respectively. He
also concocted a fictions allegation that all the four Defendants in the said
suit used force and violent method to dispossess him from the said house
and thereby pleaded for the intervention of the Court by way of injunction.
It is in this context the Respondent/Defendant here in as Plaintiff in the said
injunction suit plaint made the following statement in Para 8:
“ In fact the second defendant was never taking interest in respect of the
first defendant and he was all along living a way ward life”.
The statement clearly refers to the character of the Appellant/Plaintiff
K.S.V.Narasimhulu since he was shown as the second defendant in the said
injunction suit and the first defendant mentioned in the said statement is
none other than Koneti Venkataswamy , father of the second defendant
there-in. Since the impugned statement is totally false and derogatory to the
character of the Plaintiff and evoked curious and suspicious reactions among
many sections of society the Appellant/Plaintiff surmised that it was the
result of vengeful act of the Respondent/Defendant to humiliate him and
hold him to ridicule and contempt in the opinion of the general public. The
Appellant/Plaintiff submitted that the impugned statement is calculated with
a willful and malicious intention of the Respondent/Defendant to take
revenge on the Appellant/Plaintiff since he demanded the Respondent/
Defendant to vacate the said house in Gali Street so as to enable him to shift
his father for providing better ameneties. He had no option but to bring the
instant action in the interest of justice.

The Respondent/Defendant in his written statement maintained that

the impugned statement is truth and therefore it is no defamation. He

:: 3 ::
repeated the statement and asserted that it is made in good faith and it is
honest opinion. He came up with a fresh imputation that the father of the
Appellant/Plaintiff himself made adverse comments regarding the character
of his son the Appellant/plaintiff and that the father himself described his
son as a way ward person.

He went on to make further defamatory

statements about the Appellant/Plaintiff attributing authority to the clerks
who worked under the Appellant/Plaintiff’s father, junior advocates who
worked under him and to several relatives of the Appellant/Plaintiff. He
further made an imputation on the character of the Appellant/Plaintiff
referring to the death of the Appellant/Plaintiff’s wife in suspicious
circumstances and referred to rumors and alleged newspaper publications.
He made a wager the if any relative of the Appellant/Plaintiff can give
evidence of the good character of the Appellant/Plaintiff he has no objection
for the suit to be decreed. The Respondent/Defendant categorically denied
that he made the impugned statement to take revenge of the Appellant/
Plaintiff since he was asked to vacate the house in which he was living as
tenant. And notably the Respondent/Defendant did not give out any reason
or legal excuse for making the statement.

The Appellant/plaintiff has submitted before the Trial Court 38

documents, all of them Primary evidence. Ex. A 1. is the served copy of
plaint in O.S. No. 289/2000 on the file of the Principle Junior Civil Judge
Tirupati, containing the impugned defamatory statement. Ex. A 2 is the
office copy of the legal notice given to the Defendant and Ex. A 3 is the
postal acknowledge of delivery of the said notice to the Respondent/

Exhibits A 4 to A 35 are various documents testifying the

educational, extra-curricular, professional and social activities of the
Appellant/Plaintiff. Ex. A 36 is the will and last testation of the father of the
Appellant/Plaintiff in respect of specific property and this documents
contains some recitals of the father regarding the son. Exhibits A 37 and A
38 are certified copies of Lok Adalat decrees containing references to

PW 3 is the cousin of the Appellant/plaintiff. PW 2 is the immediate neighbour of the Appellant/plaintiffs since more than three decades. 7. He came up with another stunning allegation that “ in fact the father of the Appellant/plaintiff residing separately by taking a room on rent as Plaintiff failed to look after the welfare of his father”. The statement should have been published. 8. 3. 9. Hence this Appeal. and 4. There should be a statement. if it is true it should have been made and published without a justifiable reason. All the relevant points in the cross-examination of PW1. The Respondent/Defendant in his chief affidavit he persisted that his statements are all true and reiterated that the Appellant/Plaintiff’s father himself made adverse comments against his son’s character. 2. The statement should be a false statement. But the Trial Court dismissed the suit without judicious consideration of the facts and material placed by the Appellant/Plaintiff.:: 4 :: settlement of issues regarding the properties of the Appellant/Plaintiff. He claimed personal knowledge of the affairs of the Appellant/Plaintiff’s family and maintained that relying on hearsay and alleged news paper publications he commented on the character of the Plaintiff. There should be damage to the character or reputation of the Plaintiff. . PW 2 and PW 3 and of DW 1 were aptly discussed in the written argument submitted before the Trial court. weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 6. The Respondent/Defendant has not submitted any evidence whatsoever before the Honourable Court. or. The essential ingredients under law for in an action for Defamation are four in number: 1. The judgment is against law. The Appellant/Plaintiff also led before the Honorable Court oral evidence from two persons having knowledge of the general character of the Plaintiff.

but it is a separate defense. 12. The allegation is a defense of truth of the statement complained of is called a defense of justification. Since a period of over a hundred years there are numerous instances of statements in legal proceedings being subject of action for Defamation.” Since the Respondent/Defendant asserted that the impugned statement is true and claimed that it is no defamation it is implied that he is admitting the statement and also admitting publication of the statement. the burden is on the Respondent/defendant of alleging affirmatively and proving that the defamatory statement which the Respondent/defendant published is true.S. The said Statement being part of a legal pleading and submitted before a Court of justice is a public statement and hence there is publication. It may be pleaded alternatively to the whole or part. Admittedly it is part of the Plaint in O. The Respondent/Defendant in his written statement has emphatically pleaded that the impugned statement is totally truth and maintained that it is no defamation since it is truth. The defense of truth is only required on the assumption that the Respondent/Defendant has published a defamatory statement. Halsbury’s “ Laws of England” explains this stand as follows: “ The Appellant/plaintiff must also allege that the statement is false. . In the instant case there a Statement. Since it is typewritten it is in a permanent form.289/2000 on the file of the Court of the Honourable Principle Junior Civil Judge Tirupati. and must not be treated as part of the issue of publication.:: 5 :: 10. but since the law presumes that a person is of good character unless and until the contrary is alleged and proved. The defense of justification confesses the publication of the statement justified or so such of the statement as is justified. and asserts that it is true in substance and in fact. By such a pleading the Respondent/ Defendant has adopted the defense of justification. 11. The present case is no exception and it is not covered by any privilege.

character etc. In view of the admitted facts that there is a statement and there is publication the two issues as framed by the Trial Court and examined are: “Whether the plaintiff entitled for recovery of Damages as pleaded. ignominious. it is a statement made without any legal excuse. The statement reads: “ In fact the second defendant was never taking interest in respect of the first defendant and he was all along living a way ward life”. Even before considering the veracity of the impugned statement the Plaintiff pleads for the attention of the Honourable to the very nature of the statement and particularly to the words used in the statement. and To what relief?” The Plaintiff submits before this Honourable Court that in consideration of these two issues his main line of argument is that the statement in question if totally false. it is not made in good-faith. it is a statement made with ulterior motive and malicious intention to defame the Plaintiff and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled for damages as 14.Expressions relating to nature. It would be defamatory to characterize a person as “goonda” which is a well understood term.:: 6 :: 13. prayed for. or ludicrous. p 2766) deals with this condition as follows: 27. The first aspect as alleged by the Defendant is a question of fact. or those which set the complainant in discreditable scurrilous. light. that is to say.: Expressions which tend to blacken the character of a person which are calculated to vilify a man and bring him into hatred. The statement consists of two aspects: son taking interest in respect of father and his general character as evident in his way of life. contempt or ridicule would be ground for indictment. Nelsons’ commentary of the Indian Penal Code(1970.Vol 3. But the words “wayward life” as used to depict the second aspect before being a question of fact are basically defamatory. prima face defamatory. would be defamatory. or to allege that the complaint sings indecent .

Apart from the meaning of the word the sense it carries is derogatory and shows the Defendant in low standing. In the English language it used as an adjective denoting persons behaviour. although it does not expose him to hatred. or to charge a person with blackmailing. and such imputation is now actionable per se.” On the question of prima face defamation Halsbury’ Laws of England (p 620) categorizes as follows: “A statement which reflects upon the character of another may be defamatory.songs in the public. or to traitor who say that Nethaji Subhash Chandra Bose was a was a Japanese quisling. or to call a person “worthless” and “despicable blackguard”.” . is a drunkard and abuses girls and women and is a :: 7 :: goonda. Cambridge Advanced learner’s Dictionary gives the meaning to the word wayward as “( especially of a person’s behaviour) changeable. So at common law it has always been defamatory to impute unchastity to a woman or girl. It is enough that it tends to hold a person to contempt or ridicule. and difficult to control. dishonest.” In the light of these commentaries it is necessary to consider the import of the words “ wayward life” used by the defendant in the impugned statement. selfish. It is understood by the Appelant/Plaintiff to mean an undisciplined behaviour and the Defendant in his written-statement conceded that in fact the word is used in the same meaning. It is beyond question defamatory to charge another with fraudulent. and stank of brimstone. or to say that all officer of the British Government “ were all beasts and pigs in their conduct”. although in matters not punishable by law. More that a hundred years ago it was held that it was defamatory to call a man a villain. In general. Such words obviously through contumely on the person traduced. or to write of a man that he has the itch. a swindler. or to describe a person in the heading of a defamatory pamphlet as “shariff badmah” . or immorality. any charge of immoral conduct is defamatory. a rogue or a rascal. would be defamatory. or dishonourable conduct or motives. or to impute dishonesty.

froward. wasteful person. By common usage and common understanding the English word wayward carries shades of all the three telugu words aavaara. The word bekhatar is of urdu origin and mostly in use in Telangana region and it means a temperment and behaiour defying any norms of social behaviour. disobedient. It is one thing to call a peson a selfish person. taking one’s way”. perverse. In the light of this explanation it is pleaded that the word wayward used in the impugned statement is prima face defamatory and hence actionable per se. the . indisciplined. bekhatar and poramboku. Applied to a person poramboku means an aimless. Though it is an expression in English the sense it is understood in Telugu is not so limited to its meaning in the lexicons. cheppinattu vinani. The word poramboku is mostly used to denote wasteful or wasted as applied to land. anagani .yet another thing to describe one as an indisciplined person or of ungentlemanly person but to describe one a wayward person is to depict him in the public eye as an unsociable low character. At least three word frequently used in Telugu are nearer to the English wayward. And there appears to be no equivalent word to wayward in Telugu but there are other word carrying the same sense with shades of differing application. They are poramboku. In considering the meaning of a word in an issue of defamation total reliance may not be placed on the lexicons alone. aavaara and bekhatar. wilful. Yet it is desirable to note the meaning which imports according to the linguists and evaluate its appropriateness in the actual use of the word. it applies also to an entity not belonging to any one particularly. Admittedly the plaintiff understood the word to mean an irresponsible behaviour and the Defendant readily endorsed it and further attempted to justify its use. The word aavaara is of Hindi origin and reflects a character who generally wanders around without any commitment to any thing. Since the Defendant admitted that he has used the word in the same sense the Plaintiff understood and took objection to.:: 8 :: The famous Sankaranarayana’s English-Telugu Dictionary explains the word wayward as “ avidheyudaina.

289/2001 is a title suit. OS. The trail court failed to take cognizance of the ill-will patently reflected in the written statement and the addition of further defamatory statements. The trial Court committed an error in placing the burden of proof on the Appellant/Plaintiff instead of the Respondent/Defendant that the impugned statement is made in bad faith. the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him is irrelevant except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant” The trial court has not taken in to consideration the above mentioned statutory provision . Any reference to a person’s character even as a purported evidentiary value will never be treated as relevant. 17. And in a title suite there is absolutely no validity for character evaluation. Section 52 Evidence Act is : “ In civil cases . 16. Even to serve his alleged cause of action the impugned statement will be of no consequential support under section52 Evidence Act. It is settled law that the person who made the defamatory statement has to prove that he has made the same in good faith and the statement is true and it is covered by an exception under the law of Defamation. The trial court committed an error in coming to conclusion that the Respondent/Defendant not in good faith simply based on his assertion. :: 9 :: 15..very act of using the word is to be considered as intentional use and its aim is none other than showing the plaintiff in low light. . The Trial court in para 13 of its Judgement has stated: “However the plaintiff is not able to establish that the said statement is made in bad faith or with a view to lower the reputation of the plaintiff herein” This is clearly against the provision of law. The trial court in para 14 of its Judgemnt averred: “As per the written arguments filed by the plaintiff itself shows that wayward life means and includes life without taking care of other things” The above observation is totally a misreading of the letter and spirit of the written arguments of the Appellant/Plaintiff.

In the present suit character is the issue. :: 10 :: 18. . 20. If adolescence is the age in which foundations are laid for the overall development of an individual a spirit of dedication to the Scout should be valued as clear evidence of character building.Radhakrishan the certificate appreciates the dedication of the Plaintiff to the cause of the international Scout movement. which bear direct testimony to his intellectual pursuits. literary achievements. 21. In order to establish his credentials in respect of character and reputation the Appelant/Plaintiff has submitted before the Trial court several documents. 19. The trial court has totally ignored to take note of EX.3 that he was in Bangalore for sometime due to his employment. The trail Court came to erroneous conclusion that the Appellant/Plaintiff was not looking after his father on the basis of the evidence of P. social activities and commitment to spiritual goals.The Appellant/Plaintiff has never stated or indicated that he was not taking care of “other things”. an organizer of a spiritual concern and also an Advocate and a person held in high esteem by his father himself could neglect in taking care of his family and father simply because he is employed in a different place for some time. The trial Court has not mentioned anywhere in its Judgment the decisions cited by the Appelant/Plaintiff and it has not given any reason to ignore them. It is highly unimaginable to conclude that a committed journalist.A4 Presidents’ Scout Certificate received by the Plaintiff way back in 1966 while he was a high school student. While some documents are testimonials of high appreciation of the Plaintiff’s literary merits some documents are directly relevant to the present case in as much as they throw light on some of the issues between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Duely signed by the erstwhile President on India Late Sri S. The trial court has completely ignored the corroborative evidences filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff.W.

Nageswara Rao also made a specific mention of the plaintiff being a “ gentleman”. It is well said and oft-repeated that “once a Scout always a Scout”.:: 11 :: A Scouts motto is to serve humanity irrespective of any barriers whatsoever. The document being primary document and being a Certificate awarded by the President of India. Degree in English and another M. 22. It can be anything but true that an active responsible journalist can be described as a wayward person. Ex. As a journalist the Plaintiff worked for two popular Telugu news- papers:Andhra Prabha and Andhra Jyothi. dedication to work and excellence in profession.V. It is evident from these documents that the Plaintiff has worked in Bangalore as journalist in Andhra Prabha for a period of four years from 1982 to 86 and worked for Andhra Jyothi Tirupati from 1986 onwards. A 4 being a Certificate by the United States Information Service testifies the Plaintiffs dedication to international understanding and enthusiasm towards continental cultures. it is a public document and its contents are authentic and bear the seal and authority of the highest office in the land. The Plaintiff is a double postgraduate with an M.A.G.A 11 testify his employment in Andhra Prabha Bangalore .A. A 6 is a testimonial by former Professor of English Dr. Ex.A8 to Ex. . 23. Ex. Degree in Telugu.N. Ex.Nageswara Rao appreciating the Plaintiffs scholarly pursuits and literary merits. It is highly unimaginable that an acclaimed service minded Scout would lead a wayward life and ignore his own family . A 13 and A 14 are the evidences regarding his serivice in Andhra Jyothi in Tirupati.University Late Shri G. While Ex. Dr. A career as working journalist for a period of over a decade in daily newspapers establishes beyond any doubt punctuality. A 7 is a testimonial by former Vice-Chancellor of S.Reddy regarding the academic and literary qualities and qualifications of the Plaintiff.A 12.

A 19 is a novel “RENDU OKATE” written by the plaintiff and published by the Chittoor District Writers’ Co-operative Publication Association . This publication has acquired wide literary recognition and shows the plaintiff not only as a writer of popular fiction but also a poet of very distinct merit.A 18 “RAATRI” is a long poem written and published by the plaintiff in the year 1978. 26. 27.A 15 is Constitution and Articles of association of Sri Sugnanananda Ashramam Tirupati. It is actually a re-publication of the novel which was originally published as a weekly serial in the popular telugu weekly “PRAGATHI” and shows that in fact the plaintiff was always engaged in continuous writing work which requires a spirit of dedication and commitment. A 17 is a novel entitled “ PREMA ” written by the plaintiff during 1975. It can be ascertained from this document that in fact while the Plaintiff’s father was functioning as the president of the Ashram Association. the plaintiff was bearing office as its secretary reflecting his dedication to the noble cause. Lord . Ex. It contains stories written in different periodicals which were popular in the state of Andhra Pradesh .The plaintiff begs for the kind attention of the Honourable court to consider the special significance regarding this book . Ex. This exhibit establishes that at a very young age the plaintiff was having a very wide popularity in the state. Ex. Ex. Chittoor during the year 1977. Being the story of the presiding deity of Tirupati . A 20 “KALIYUGA DAIVAM” is the story of Lord Venkateswara written by the plaintiff in the year 1982. The Ashram is an institution established by the Plaintiffs father Koneti Venkataswamy in memory of his late brother and Guru Sri Sugnanananda Swamiji. 25 . This exhibit establishes without any doubt that the plaintiff was engaged in literary and publication activity and widely recognized in Chittoor district. A 16 “ IRAVATHY “ is an anthology of short stories written and published by the plaintiff during the year 1973 . Ex. Ex.:: 12 :: 24.

the book reflects the plaintiff’s religious bent of mind and commitment to moral values. A 21is classical metrical poetry “SUGNANA SATAKAM” composed by the plaintiff in the year 1993.A 30 and A 31are all very popular novels written by the plaintiff and serially published in most popular . Ex. SUGNANA SATAKAM and SUGNANA GEETHA clearly reflect the whole hearted commitment of the plaintiff to the high ideals cherished by his family elders and also establish that he has been using his literary talent to serve the noble cause of the Ashramam established by the plaintiff’s father. It can be seen from the inner page that the book was actually published with the financial assistance of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.A 22 is poetical and philosophical composition by the late Sri Sugnanananda Swamiji with the title “SUGNANA GEETHA” which was edited and published by the plaintiff during the year 1994. A 23 is a copy of “TIRUPATI SHAKTI” weekly edited and published by the plaintiff and shows the plaintiff as a dynamic person engaged in very serious journalistic work.A 25.A 36. A particular mention of this publication can be found in paragraph 16 of the Will of the plaintiff’s father. 29. Ex. which is Ex. To describe a person running a spiritual concern established by his father as a wayward person can be far from truth.A 26. 28. And this book is dedicated to Sri Sugnanananda Swamiji who is the late brother and Guru of the plaintiff’s father Late Sri Koneti Venkataswamy . This book was released in a special function presided over by the then District Collector in the premises of “ SRI SUGNANANANDA ASHRAM” founded and managed the plaintiff’s father late Sri Koneti Venkataswamy . Ex. Ex.A 27. These three publications KALIYUGA DAIVAM.A 29. which clearly establishes that the plaintiff’s literary merit is recognized and patronized by the TTD. Exhibits A 24.A 28.:: 13 :: Venkateswara . A 34 is further proof of the proceedings of TTD regarding the financial aid to the plaintiff for publication of these books.

telugu weekly magazines: SWATHI WEEKLY. A 35 is a testimonial of appreciation given to the plaintiff by the late poet-laureate of Andhra Pradesh Dr. Ex. ANDHRAPRABHA :: 14 :: WEEKLY. 30.A 36 dated 5. Even the very volume of these publications running in to several hundreds of pages and being publications in popular magazines establish that the plaintiff was always engaged in productive literary work which was not only giving him name and fame but also getting him high remunerations. 31. The plaintiff prays for the mercy of the Hon’ble court to note the contents of this exhibit which is a post card written to the plaintiff by Late Vidwan Sri Korlagunta Krishnaiah which is irrefutable evidence on the most idealistic harmonious and glorious relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s father. 33.2. And late Sri Krishnaiah was witness to numerous occasions in which the plaintiff and his father shared the same dias in conducting “DHARMIKOPANYASAM” programmes.Dasaradhi. ANDHRAJYOTHI WEEKLY. These letters of admiration and appreciation and fanfare received by the plaintiff undoubtedly demonstrate the popularity of the plaintiff in the general public. It can be read in this letter that the writer of the letter Sri. The plaintiff humbly prays the attention of the Hon’ble court Ex. This document is very significant in establishing beyond any . Ex. 32.A 32 being a bunch of 25letters submitted before the Hon’ble court as samples of responses from readers belonging to different cross sections of society.Venkataswamy in favour of the plaintiff. The contents of the testimonial place the plaintiff in a very high order of literary brilliance and achievement.Krishnaiah was participating in programmes in the ashram run by the plaintiff’s father which was meticulously assisted by the plaintiff.1996 is a certified copy of the registered Will executed by the father of the plaintiff Late K.

Venkataswamy for the noble ideal of running the Ashramam as a spiritual concern in memory of his late brother and Guru Sri Sugnanananda Swamiji since over a period of 50years and the absolute rights over the property with the responsibility of the Trusteeship of the ashramam was handed over in this testation and all the contents of this document have great relevance to the absolute trust of the plaintiff’s father reposed in the plaintiff here-in.V. commitment. aged about 43years and widower with only one son.S. Late Sri Venkataswamy recited a significant occasion on 13.1994 and 1995 and other programmes for the conduct of weekly-Saturday-dharmikopanyasam by beginning from 13-3-1993 and running even now without any break gave a big fillip to the spread of the name of SUNANANANDA ASHRAMAM in tirupati town and ooutside places and releaseof his book of poems called SUGNANA SATAKAM which isafter the name of Sri Swamijihas received universal acclaim in telugu literary field and above all starting and running an elimentary school as Ashramam school in the Ashramam premises indicating the whole hearted devotion and his dedication to the late Swamiji and the Ashramam” .1993 being the PUNARUJJEVANA UTSAVAM . In paragraph 15 of the Will. this property has been enjoyed and preserved by Late. Author of books and Journalist and who is also a born sage without ambition for money and with utter disregard for worldly affairs came forward to give assistance to the Ashramam from 1991 and made excellent arrangements in the matters of Ashramam and organized big functions during Aradhana Utsawam in 1993 .Narasimhuu herein after called K.V. This is the Will and last testation of the plaintiff’s father in respect of specific property in Survey no: 694 in Tirupati town.reasonable doubt the character.K. In paragraph 16 of the Will Venkataswamy stated “Whereas under the above background my only son by name K.3. literary merit. from which date the activities of the ashramam gained a new dimension and high popularity. A self-acquistion by the plaintiff’s father. :: 15 :: integrity and dedication of the plaintiff.S. prolific writer and poet. who is a holder of two Masters’ Degrees in Arts. reputation.

spreading of feeling of brotherhood in all classes of society.” All the above recitals by the plaintiff’s father in favour of his son are self-explanatory. and also serving humanity for spiritual upliftment.V. . arranging of Dharmikopanyaasams . the Swamiji. uplifting of womanhood . spiritual and cultural activities and such other things. The recitals reflect not only the father’s love and affection but also his high appreciation of the commitment of the son to high ideals and integrity in respect of performing the assigned duties. Late Sri Venkataswamy was a very eminent advocate and a person of great integrity and honour and in running the Ashramam he was cherishing the high ideals of commemorating the memory of his late brother.doing social. The very fact that he has bequeathed very valuable property with all of its historical institutional background of over 50years to the plaintiff establishes beyond any sort of doubt that the father had high appreciation of the character and capabilities of the plaintiff.S. It is my pious wish that it should be preserved as an Ashramam and I consider that my son is the best qualified and fit and proper person to be entrusted with the Ashramam work. The recitals undoubtedly show that the father had absolute trust in the work and way of life of the son.:: 16 :: Further in Para 17 Sri Venkataswamy stated “present trustee K. has already statutorily commenced his work as an unregistered trustee from 1993 onwards” In paragraph 18 Sri Venkataswamy recited “ and whereas the said property was acquired by me for the purpose of running an Ashramam in accordance with the noble and pious wishes of Sri Swamiji and whereas it was maintained as an Ashramam for more than 50 years up to my present age of about 74 years. I do hereby appoint him as trustee of the Ashramam and bequeath the same to him to maintain the same as an ashramam as long as possible and practicable for him by continuing the worship of Samadhi . Yoga institutions . running of schools and colleges . conducting the meditating classes in its premises .

It is true that P. Sri Rangaswamy in his affidavit has stated all the facts regarding the Plaintiff’s career as a journalist and services to the Ashramam established by his father and he enjoys reputation in the public. it is of no material consequence that it if P.W.W.W.W.3 that he has .W. 3 is the cousin brother of the Plaintiff. 2 proved nothing against the facts asserted by P.W.V.W. He has endorsed all the facts regarding the professional and family life of the plaintiff.S. The Defendants’ cross-examination of P. Sri Rangaswamy categorically stated that the plaintiff never lead wayward life and he has been leading responsible life committed to his family.Prasad is equally of appreciable merit. The defendant in the cross-examination has elicited from P.Rangaswamy is a serious citizen of 76years age residing in house bearing 123. Oral evidence given by P.:: 1 7 :: 34 .W. Significantly in the cross. Sri Rangaswamy is a man of advanced age and being a neighbour for over four decades he is acquainted with the family of the Plaintiff and there cannot be any reason to refuse his statements. 2. The testimony of Sri Rangaswamy cannot be refused on the ground that because he is a neighbour he may be deposing to help the plaintiff. P.Mada Street and next-door neighbour of the plaintiff. 3 Sri K. 2 in the cross has stated that he has never visited the place of employment of the plaintiff and that he was not a subscriber of weeklies and other magazines. P. 2 Sri T.G. He has specifically stated that the plaintiff has always been looking at his family affairs as responsible member of the family and that he was looking after his father till his death with love and affection providing all necessities to him. 2 has categorically stated that late Venkataswamy “ was living with his wife and two daughters and the plaintiff” Sri Rangaswamy has also denied the suggestion that the plaintiff was not living with his father Late Sri Venkataswamy. In the light of documentary evidences produced by the plaintiff regarding the employment of plaintiff as also services to the Ashramam . It is submitted that the Appellant/Plaintiff has lead oral evidence from two persons having intimate knowledge of his general character and reputation.

to depose in this matter in the interest of justice. A 9. the plaintiff was mostly residing at Bangalore” can only be considered to mean that the only time the plaintiff was away from home was while he was at Banglore by way of employment. It has been well observed in various legal commentaries that evidence regarding a person’s character can be effectively given by relatives and close friends . It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that P. The gifting of the said property is an act long subsequent to the filing of this suit and it can in no way be considered as a hindrance to evaluate the P. the plaintiff has no objection to decree the suit.his cousin brother . 35 . In the light of documentary evidence exhibits A 8. it can clearly be seen that plaintiff was in employment in “Andhra Prabha” at Bangalore .W.3 clearly indicate that the plaintiff is committed to his profession and also his family with equal importance and that he is never negligent in respect of the welfare of the family. His statement that “while Late Venkataswamy was alive .W. A 10 and A 11.W. But on this ground alone .3 is not a well-educated person and not used to testations in courts of Justice. The plaintiff begs the attention of the Hon’ble court to the fact that the defendant in his written statement Para 7 has made a mention of the relatives of the plaintiff and challenged “ these are the blood relation of the plaintiff and everyone of them are aware about his conduct and the contents of the plaint are totally correct and the same is supported by the version of the deceased wife of the plaintiff. At least some of them comes to the Box and says that he is not of that sort. 3. his testimony regarding the character of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed.W2 and P.” Very much as a response to the Defendant’s wager the plaintiff has lead P.W. 3 .W. Considering the fact that the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff in this suit is one lakh rupees. The testimonies of P.for a period of four years only.:: 18 :: received a gift of 45cents of property from the plaintiff and the said property received by him is worth around 10lakhs of rupees. it would be illogical to assume that the plaintiff would have gifted a property worth ten lakh rupees to P.3’s testimony.

TheRespondent/Defendant in his written statement pleaded that impugned statement is “totally correct” he maintained that it does not lower the moral or intellectual character. honesty and discipline.S.No:289/2000 and as such the question of defamatory statements made by me against the present plaintiff doesn’t arise” It will be illogical to assume or to believe that the Plaintiff might have changed his behaviour and attitude as a result of the Defendant’s imputation of leading a wayward life. he stated “The factual aspects taken place on that date was pleaded in O. “There are no defamatory allegations made against the Plaintiff and in fact it is truth which he commented upon. the Defendant has categorically stated.” In para4 of the chief affidavit filed by the Defendant. Apart from his contribution to the literary world and his enjoyment of high reputation as a popular writer and poet. his later years of middle age are devoted to the various issues concerning his family and he is meticulously guarding his professional and personal necessities. a prolific writer. It will be very desirable to note that as a very young adolescent of about 16years the plaintiff has received a certificate of merit for his services for the scout movement from the President of India and during his academic life he was well qualified for the pursuit of a career in literature and journalism.No: 289/2000 and subsequent to the same the plaintiff might have changed his behaviour and attitude but the facts which are in my knowledge is pleaded by me in O.only. a committed journalist and a spiritual person devoting his energies to the ideals set by his late father and he has always been a person of integrity. :: 19 :: 36.S. In para5 of the written statement. 37. The statement is “in good faith and honest opinion” is the assertion of the defendant. By the presentation of abundant authentic documentary evidence and also reliable oral evidence the plaintiff hereby submits that he has established his credentials as a highly educated person. since character is something which is not exposed to the general world and it cannot be judged by total strangers. towards the end of the Para. .

is upon him. the reputation of such person. Under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code it is the intention of the Defendant that makes the statement a defamatory statement. The general principle of Law involved on the part of the Defendant in this aspect is that every person is presumed to be honest. or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm. While the plaintiff establishes the publication of a statement prima face defamatory. Section 105 Evidence Act reads: “When a person is accused of any offence. good and decent unless the contrary is proved. except in the cases herein after excepted. the question of burden of proof is of immediate consideration. or in any other part of the same Code. and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Its main concern is about a statement published with an intention or with knowledge or reason to believe that the statement will cause harm to the Plaintiff.” .” It can be observed that the definition of defamation by itself doesn’t contain any reference to either truth or false truth. In an action of Defamation once the Plaintiff has established the presence of a statement and established the publication of the statement and :: 20 :: alleged that the statement is prima face defamatory. the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). or in any law defining the offence. to defame the person. is said. or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm. A careful examination of the definition of Defamation under section 499 is essential “Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read. the burden of proof that the statement in question doesn’t amount defamation is on the defendant.38. In pursuance of this principle it is settled Law that the owners of proof is shifted on the Defendant under section 105 Evidence Act.

In essence by operation of section 105 Evidence Act . In a prosecution for defamation. 40. it would be incumbent on the accused to prove either that his statement was actually true or that he believed in good faith that it was so . the burden of proving that he comes within the exceptions in the penal code . or of Exception 1 or 9 to section 499 . As regards the question of good faith claimed by the Defendant the burden is heavy on him to prove that at the time of making the impugned statement he has acted with “ attention and due care”. Nor did he adduce any oral evidence to the effect that he has acted in good faith while he was making the impugned statement. assuming the words to be prima face defamatory. Penal Code. is on A held that the burden of proof of good faith in a charge of defamation lay on the accused and section 105 left no doubt on that point. The concept of good faith as applicable in legal proceedings is enshrined in Section 52 Indian Penal Code: .:: 21 :: Field’s Law of Evidence (1972. Both in the written statement and in the Affidavit the Defendant has loquaciously pleaded that many junior advocates and clerks who worked under the Plaintiff’s father and also the close blood relatives of the Plaintiff “are fully aware about the truth of the statement” Even so his inability to produce any of them as oral evidence indicates that his claim is absolutely false. the defendant can only be presumed to be having no evidence at all to substantiate his contention that the impugned statement is truth. The Respondent/ Defendant has only asserted in his written statement that he has made the impugned statement in good faith but has not submitted any evidence before this Hon’ble court. in order to entitle him to the benefit of section 79 . It is false because it is base-less. 39. page 4460) explains this position : Defamation: If A is accused of defamation. section 499 . Volume 5 .

It will only be reasonable to expect from such a responsible person due care and attention while making a severe allegation regarding the character of the Plaintiff.I. Nelson’s Indian Penal Code (1966 . The care and attention required by Law must have relation to the occasion and the circumstances and the question has to what would be due care and attention must be determined with reference there to. presumably a man of the world and as stated by him.” In the present case the Defendant is a businessman.” :: 22 :: The definition of Good Faith in this section is a negative definition and means if an act is done without due care and attention it will not be deemed to have been done in good faith. His incapacity to .1953 Madras . he ought to have produced before this Hon’ble court relevant evidence. What is due care and attention depends upon the position in which a man finds himself and varies in different cases. If in fact he has taken due care and attention. While being a tenant in a house and on proceeding legally in order to retain possession he has acted under expert legal guidance and as asserted by him he has gathered information regarding the Plaintiff’s family particulars. either documentary or oral to substantiate his claim that he has acted in good faith. apart from particulars regarding the property he is residing in. in re Ganapathaiah Pillai A. page 193) quotes the following observation relying on A Madras High Court decision . 936 “ The question of good faith is a question of fact and must be gathered from the surrounding circumstances. But good faith doesn’t require logical infallibility but due care and caution which must in case be considered with reference to the general circumstances and the capacity and intelligence of the person whose conduct is in question.“Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.R. Mere actual belief without any reasonable grounds for believing is not simultaneous with good faith. a family man of two grown-up children. volume 1.

The Appellant/Plaintiff pleads for the attention of the Hon’ble court to take judicious note of various contradicting.produce any evidence what so ever only categorically proves that his claim of good faith is absolutely false. he denies it by saying “ the juniors and clerks of Venkataswamy did not tell anything against Plaintiff to me” C) It is very curious and astounding that the Defendant is making confusing statements regarding the advocate engaged by him while filing O. till his death. Tirupati.S. persons worked under his father and the close relatives of the Plaintiff was fully aware about the truth and genuineness of the statements made by me”.No:289/2000 on the file of The Principle Junior Civil Judge . his mother and sisters aloof”.No:289/2000 . in his affidavit and during his cross examination. in his cross-examination on affidavit he states that “it is not true to suggest O. :: 23 :: 41. advocate . A) While in the written statement the Defendant in concluding line of para5 stated: “When the Defendant joined as a tenant for several years he was always residing separately near Jayabharath theatre for taking room for rent . leaving his father .P.Jyotimurthy . Govindaraja Swamy south mada street . B) In the affidavit the Defendant in Para 5 stated “the colleagues .S. While the cause title of the said suit plaint clearly mentions the address of the Plaintiff for the purpose of notices etc as c/o Sri. But in his cross examination . evasive and negligent statements the Respondent/Defendant had made in his written statement. Tirupati . In his affidavit in the concluding line of para6 he came up with a totally different picture by saying “in fact the father of Plaintiff residing separately by taking a room on rent as plaintiff failed to look after the welfare of his father ” and in cross examination he states Plaintiff’s father namely Koneti Venkataswamy was living in door number 124 .

S. The cause of action set forward by him is that the Plaintiff herein along with his sisters and also instigated by his father . His locus standi in O.Jyotimurthy. It can only be inferred that he is regardless of the necessity of a reason to make such an imputation. His repeated assertion that it is truth in good faith and therefore not defamation is not acceptable in Law. advocate at all.289/200 is that of a tenant and he has expressly denied the title of the Plaintiff here in. In the cross he says that “ he is not an advocate” and further emphatically denies the suggestion and says “ It is not true to suggest that the plaintiff is a practicing advocate and that I am stating he is not a advocate” E) In the very written statement in para3. advocate on my behalf. It is settled principle of Law that negligence negativates good faith. the Defendant has stated that O. “ I do not remember if I have shown the sisters of the Plaintiff as parties of the suit in O.S. Neither in the written statement nor in the Affidavit did the plaintiff mention any particular reason or legal excuse for making the said statement. In the cross he says.S.No:289/2000 was not filed on the Plaintiff alone “ but all the family members of the Plaintiff”.P.S.was not filed by Sri. :: 24 :: D) In the chief affidavit.Jyotimurthy .289/2000” All the above observations will only lead to a conclusion that the Defendant is highly negligent and abnormally reckless in conducting himself in legal proceeding and it will be improbable to give any weight to his claim that he has acted in good faith at whatever point of time in the filing of suit O. The said statement has been made in a legal pleading seeking a civil remedy. In pursuance of a careful examination of definition of defamation it is necessary to consider the motive with which the Defendant has made the impugned statement.No: 289/2000.P. I do not know Sri. 42. he makes out a plea that “the plaintiff being an advocate by profession filed the present suit with false and untenable allegations”. para 2.

evidence of character or reference to character is absolutely irrelevant in civil cases where as in criminal cases under certain circumstance it may be of some relevance.S 289/2000 the Respondent/Defendant has made repetition of the statement during his pleadings in his written statement and also his affidavit. Nelson’s Penal code (page 2759) explains as follows : “ A person who hears a libelous statement made concerning another has no right to take it for granted that it is true. in which he was tenant. It is settled Law that words charging a person with . It is settled Law that repetition of defamatory statement can lead to a fresh cause of action on defamation. Wrong is not to be justified or excused by wrong because one man does an unlawful act to any person another is not permitted to do similar act to the same person” 44. In the light of this legal provision it is evident that the impugned statement is totally irrelevant for the alleged cause of action in O. 43. The previous publication by another of defamatory words is no justifications for their repetition. :: 25 :: In essence. Gali street . The mere fact that some such are similar accusation against the complainant had been made by some other person as well would not be a valid defiance for the accused.have adopted a violent and forceful attempt to evict him from house no: 339 .S. Apart from making the impugned statement in the plaint of O. The defendant has blatantly made further defamatory imputations on the Plaintiff in his written statement by saying that there were news items published regarding the death of the Plaintiff’s wife in suspicious circumstances.No 289/2000. And in so doing he stated that he relied in hearsay and rumours in the society. Since the impugned statement is not at all relevant in the said suit it can only be surmised that he has made the statement with an ulterior motive of taking revenge on the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff has asked him to vacate the house. And in so doing he has got a malicious intention to defame the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff pleads for the kind attention of this Hon’ble court to consider Exhibits 37 and 38. When defamatory words are prima face libelous. Gali Street . :: 26 :: Nelson’s Penal Code (page 2764) explains: “ An imputation against another person although made in the absence of actual ill-will is not on that account to be accepted as being made bonafide. legal malice must be presumed until the case of privilege is made out. The unwarranted context in which the Defendant made these imputations clearly indicate a mind bent on causing harm to the plaintiff some way or the other. Being related implies identical or similar cause of action in the nature of res judicata. Being related to a suit is altogether different from being relevant.S. The Plaintiff in the cross examination by the Defendant has stated that these documents are in no way related to the present suite. Exhibits 37 and 38 are relevant to the case in the same way as all the other Exhibits submitted . Being relevant is having reference in respect of merit and comparative evaluation.” 39. absolutely belonged to the Plaintiff the tenant has filed a suit for injunction on a fabricated cause of action and only in order to pave a way for multiplicity of litigation he has added the family members of the Plaintiff here in as Defendants 1. In the written statement in O.Even though the presence of malice is not necessary to establish an intention to defame the plaintiff in this particular case the Defendant has express proclaimed and clear malice towards the Plaintiff.having committed punishable offenses without a justified cause is itself defamation. 3 and 4 in that suit. Conscious violation of Law to another’s prejudice is sufficient though there may be no malice in fact.289/2000 as Defendant the Appellent/Plaintiff here in has categorically pleaded that the suit itself is a collusive suit and though the house bearing no: 339 . 45. The plaintiff pleads emphatically on this point since this is a case of an act of defamation in a legal pleading and the Defendant is an opponent in the legal proceeding and so has got a natural tendency to be maliciously disposed towards the Plaintiff.

” 47. Tirupati contains a term of reference with regards to settlement of properties between the Plaintiff here in and his two sisters. . tirupati described in Plaint C schedule is absolute property of the 1st Defendant.S. It can be seen from Para 12 of the compromise decree in Exhibit 37 that the Plaintiffs have not pressed the suit against Defenadants 3 to 13 and the suit is dismissed against them.hence the house bearing door no” 339. Exhibit 37 dated 28/4/2006 being Lok Adalat award in the Plaintiff. Tirupati for eviction of the Defendant from the said house in Gali street and the suit has concluded in a settlement before the Lok Adalat Exhibit 38. In . The Defandant here in is thoroughly aware of the partition suit and in fact he readily paid three months rent to the court Receiver appointed in the matter. :: 27 :: on the file of Fourth Additional District Court . in ward no:6 described in plaint C schedule was absolute self acquired property of Late Sri Koneti venkataswamy and he has gifted away the same in flavor of his son .S 289/2000 has filed a suit O.151/2000 on the file of Principle Senior Civil Judge.S. tirupati . The Plaintiff hereby pleads for the kind attention of the Hon’ble court to note Para3 of the said award proclaims that “the house bearing door no:339. In the above suit for partition the sisters of the Plaintiff here-in have added the Defandant here-in as Defandant No: 4 as a purported measure of caution to get the rents deposited in the Court pending disposal of the partition suit. The award is only a legal requisite since the Respondent/Defendant has in fact vacated the said house and handed over vacant possession of the same to the Plaintiff. The Appellant/Plaintiff here-in as a sequel to O. The plaintiff here by asserts that Exhibits 37 and 38 are very much relevant for the present suit. Gali street . in Ward number 6 in Gali Street . the first defendant here in under a registered gift deal dated 11/6/1987 and the 1st Defendant has constructed an RCC house in the same with his own earnings .

In Para 3 of the same document the Defendant has stated that the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. While the impugned statement is designed and made part of the pleadings in the injunction suit OS 289/200 and the cause of action itself is fabricated to enable the Defendant to squat in the house of the Plaintiff for as long a period as possible. 49.550/- the total rents deposited by him In the Court. In Para 4 of the said award the Defendant has conceded to allow :: 28 :: the Plaintiff to receive the three months’ rent paid by him to the court receiver in O. 48. In fact the Defendant has mischievously made it a point to humiliate not only the Plaintiff here-in but also his father Sri. Under this Exhibit it can also be seen that the Defendant has paid all arrears of rents to the Plaintiff here-in which means that the Plaintiff was always the owner of the house in question.the Lok Adalat award in exhibit A38 the Defendant has stated that he has given vacant position of the Plaint scheduled house to the Plaintiff on 28/4/2006. These two facts of admissions by the Defendant in Ex. his intention is clearly malice in fact . Hence it can be inferred that the Defendant has acted only with the intention of squatting in the house anyhow by recorsing to legal proceedings in which he is not at all sure to succeed.S.A 38 clearly indicate his previous conduct and knowledge that in fact that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said house in Gali street and the Defendant has not acted in good faith at all in filing the said injunction suit OS 289/200 and might have acted recklessly a under misguidance from the adversaries of the Plaintiff. In so far as the absence of a justifiable reason on the part of the Defendant to make any defamatory statement affecting the character and reputation of the plaintiff . Koneti Venkataswamy. The Plaintiff begs for the kind attention of the Honourable to . This attribute and state of mind of the Defendant has prompted in acting with legal malice. the very nature attributes of the pleadings in the said suit plaint have latent malice aimed and calculated to show the Plaintiff here-in in low light. 77.26/2002 on the file of Fourth Additional District Judge.

All this demonstration is to explain the malicious state of mind of the Defendant in filing the suit OS 289/2000 and particularly his calculated intention to defame the Plaintiff in the course of a legal the calling of the Defendant K. Subsequent to the suit and in the month of December 2001 Sri Venkatawamy passed away and his death was condoled by the Tirupati Bar Association. In respect of describing the calling of the Defandant 2 that is the Plaintiff here-in the same malicious method is adopted by the Defendant here-in. Venkataramaiah’s Law Lexican explains malice as follows : “Venkataramaiah’s “ LAW LEXICON ”( PAGE 840) .court to the cause title of the plaint in OS 289/2000 where. Defendant 2 in OS 289/2000 that is K.V.” By describing that the father is depending of his son and daughters and in the cause title itself describing the son as a “ dependant” a calculated and designed attempt has been made to give a very pathetic picture of both the father and son being dependants on the daughters which altogether is false in the light of the abundant evidence produced by the Plaintiff here-in.Venkataswamy is stated only as ‘ Landlord’ and not mentioned as Advocate.Narasimhulu is described as “Dependant” and not as a writer as journalist. the Defandant here-in described that “ the first defendant became totally dependant on the second defendant and the other defendants and he has no disposing capacity of his own due to extreme age. The Defandant who claims to have close personal acquaintance of Late Sri Venkataswamy has committed an act of omission by ignoring the calling of Sri Venkataswamy and described him as Landlord only in order to humiliate him in the course of a legal proceeding. It is a legal requisite that document should be read as a whole though particular examination of the portions in question is more severe. This is another example of the malicious intent of the Defendant in the nature and spirit of the plaint in OS 289/2000. In Para 8 of the said plaint which contains the impugned statement. 50 . The said Venkaraswamy lived and died as an :: 29 :: Advocate and while at the time of instilling the said he was very much attending his practice.S.

It may be implied from a deliberate intention to do a wrong without justification. perpetration of injurious acts without lawful excuse. willfully and wantonly. vindictiveness. which is reckless of law and of the legal rights of others. intent to use the legal process in question for some other than its legally appointed or appropriate purpose. cruelty.MALICE Malice means the presence of improper and wrongful motive. which implies injury to another without cause from a spirit of revenge or from personal gratification. social or legal. which is disdainful of duties. rather than to vindicate the law. that is to say. and recklessness of consequences and regardless of one’s obligation. The Plaintiff is a writer and journalist of over 30years standing and a prominent citizen in Tirupati town and also a member of the Tirupati Bar. and disregards the duties of others. He enjoys wide reputation all over Andhra Pradesh as an intellectual dedicated to social justice and the kind of injustice perpetrated on him by the .” It is indicative of an evil mind. but it is a state of mind. Malice indicates varying shades of wickedness and includes cool depravity and harshness of heart. thoughtlessly or negligently but designedly. without just cause or excuse. Malice is “ a wish to injure the party. In common parlance. Malicious act is not one which is done accidentally. It is not necessarily hate or ill will.” In the light of the above citation theAppellent/ Plaintiff prays the Hon’ble court to take in to consideration express and patent malice that has prompted the Respondent/Defendant to make the impugned statement and in the interest of the Justice award suitable damages for the loss of reputation sustained by the Plaintiff. It is the doing of wrongful act to another without legal excuse or justification willfully purposely. All acts done with an evil disposition or unlawful motive with an intention to cause injury and without legal excuse may be characterized as malicious. malice means ill-will against a person but in legal acceptance it means a wrongful act done intentionally. :: 30 :: It is an element that can be established by inference from circumstances and cannot be proved by evidence. It is a disposition.

Respondant/Defendant in the present case cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money.2007 passed in O. It is.No. it is submitted that the claim of one lakh rupees as damages for the loss of reputation sustained by him will only be reasonable and justifiable. Advocate for Appellant. therefore. even so since any compensation should be :: 31 :: something in the eye of Law.08. . prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the Decree and Judgment dated 30. 72/2001 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Court.S. Tirupati and decree the same by allowing this appeal with costs throughout.