(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order XLI, Rule 1 of CPC to set aside the Judgement and Decree dated 13.11.2017 in O.S. No.7206 of 2010 passed by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. The defendant in O.S. No.7206 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, District Court, Chennai is the appellant in the present First Appeal.

2. PLEADINGS:

2.1. Plaint in brief:

The plaintiff is the correspondent of PJ Gupta High School, Ambattur and a member of registered Trust Venkatapuram Cultural Association, since 1992. The Trust runs the School and 2500 under privileged students are studying the said School. The plaintiff joined the Management Committee, at which point of time, the School was only a middle School with classes upto eight. The plaintiff has single handedly raised funds to build RCC roofing class rooms and also upgraded the School to High School in 1999. The plaintiff enjoys high reputation in the education fraternity in Chennai. The Managing Committee, Parent and Teacher Association as well as old students have recognized the untiring efforts of the plaintiff, in raising resources for the development of the School.

                   2.2.The defendant has deliberately and maliciously circulated false information by issuing letters to third parties, with a view to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. The defendant was removed from primary membership of Venkatapuram Cultural Association by unanimous decision of the Governing Committee on 14.06.2009, after coming to know that the defendant had withdrawn huge sums of money from the Trust account and was not able to satisfy or explain such withdrawal.

                   2.3. The defendant blaming the plaintiff for his removal, has indulged in defaming the plaintiff, by sending a letter on 13.06.2009 to Round Table of India, of which the plaintiff is a member for several years. The letter proceeds as if the plaintiff had withdrawn money towards commission for getting donation from Round Table of India. This conduct of the defendant has damaged the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never took any money for his personal benefit from out of the money raised by the Round Table of India or any other charitable organisation. As a follow up to the defendant’s letter, the President of the Trust has addressed a letter dated 26.06.2009 to the Chairman of Madras, Spice Round Table 159, explaining the reason why the defendant has sent such a defamatory letter and that the plaintiff has not been cause for the defendant’s removal from the Trust. The plaintiff was even required to be hospitalized on account of this, his health suffering a set back as a direct result of the defendant’s defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs.11 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and trauma.

                   2.4. Written Statement in brief:

                   The suit has been filed before this Court without jurisdiction. The entire cause of action arose in Ambattur, where the School is running and the plaintiff is not as virtuous as projected in the plaint, as he has diverted 10% from and out of the donations towards commission, which is unbecoming of a member of the Trust. The defendant further states that the plaintiff was removed as correspondent of the School and he and his wife, whom the plaintiff had appointed, were restrained from operating the bank account of the School on account of several irregularities committed by them. The defendant is also a member of Round Table of India and on coming to know that the plaintiff was drawing commission out of donations given by the Round Table to the School, only in order to bring out such financial irregularities, the defendant had addressed the letter. It was only in the interest of the Trust as well as the School. The defendant has not caused any mental agony or stress as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not pleaded as to what stress or agony, he has suffered in order to claim compensation for the alleged losses caused on account of defamation. The plaintiff had initially caused a notice on 29.09.2009 claiming Rs.50,00,000/- as damages, however the suit claim is only Rs.11,00,000/- which clearly shows that the claim is without any basis whatsoever.

                   2.5.Issues Framed by the Trial Court:-

                   The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant framed the following issues:

                   (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for?

                   (ii) Whether the Court is having jurisdiction to try this suit?

                   (iii) To what other reliefs?Trial

                   2.6. At trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A8. On the side of the defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1 and one Murthy was examined as D.W.2 and on the side of the defendant, Ex.B1 to B23 have been marked.

                   2.7. Decision of the Trial Court:

                   The Trial Court finding that the Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit, also found that the defendant has defamed the reputation of the plaintiff and awarded damages of Rs.1,00,000/-. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendant is on appeal.

3. I have heard Mr.R.Antony Roch Kamal for Mr.Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.Anisha Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would first and foremost contend that the Trial Court, without noticing that the plaintiff is not a famous person, having or enjoying popular status, proceeded to award damages. He would further contend that the Trial Court has failed to notice that the defendant has clearly established that the plaintiff appropriated 10% commission out of the funds raised, which was clearly amounting to siphoning of the funds of the Trust and the plaintiff has even given a false account to justify the Commission misappropriated by him.

5. He would further state that the cause of action arose in Ambattur but the suit has been filed in Chennai and therefore, the Trial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel would further state that the Trial Court did not even give an opportunity to the defendant to advance arguments as the suit had earlier been dismissed for default on 10.01.2017 and without notice, it was restored to file on 07.10.2017 and subsequently, disposed of without hearing the appellant/defendant. He would therefore state that the defendant has lost a valuable opportunity to putforth arguments to defend the claim for defamation.

6. Also, the contention of the learned counsel that the letter dated 13.06.2009, which is the cause for the suit has not even been exhibited as a suit document and consequently, the Trial Court clearly erred in awarding damages. He would also state that there is absolutely no evidence on the side of the plaintiff to establish the damage or loss suffered by him warranting even a decree for Rs.1,00,000/-, though his claim was Rs.11,00,000/- in the suit and earlier in the pre-suit notice into Rs.50,00,000/-.

ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

7. Per contra, Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the suit has been filed for recovery of money as against the appellant and admittedly the appellant resides within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the suit is certainly maintainable before the Courts at Chennai and there is no error committed by the Trial Court in holding that the suit has been filed before the Competent Court having jurisdiction.

8. Insofar as the claim for defamation, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in matters of defamation, truth itself is defence and Ex.A1 was clear and unambiguous and had asserted an illegal act committed by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, it is not a document which has been issued in the interest of the School address as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant but only to attack the reputation of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would further states that any and every person is entitled to maintain his reputation and it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be famous or of high repute to maintain a suit for defamation. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the impugned communication is also motivated as the defendant was removed from the Trust Board on 14.06.2009 and despite attending the meeting, the defendant refused to sign the minutes which is evidenced by Ex.B10. He would further submit that the Venkatapuram Cultuaral Association has also filed a suit against the appellant for misappropriation of funds and the Civil Court in O.S. No.732 of 2010 has held that the appellant is guilty of misappropriation and directed him to pay Rs.11,01,250/-.

9. As regards the opportunity not being given to argue the suit, Mr.T.Mohan, leanred Senior Counsel states that only after notice to the appellant, the suit was restored to file and the appellant was well aware of the proceedings in the suit. He would rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Purushottam Reddy and another Vs. Prathap Steels Limited, reported in 2002 (2) SCC 686. He would therefore pray for the appeal being dismissed.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

10. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, the following issues arise for consideration in this appeal.

                   (1) Whether the Courts in Chennai were competent to try the suit?

                   (2) Whether the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has caused damage to his reputation entitling the plaintiff to damages and if so, to what sum?

11. POINT No.1:

The suit was initially filed before the Original Side of this Court. Admittedly, the plaintiff and the defendant are individuals and both residents of Chennai, within the jurisdiction of High Court. Therefore, there was not even a necessity to take leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865 before instituting the suit on the file of the Original Side. Subsequently, this suit has been transferred to the City Civil Court on account of the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Courts. The Trial Court has also specifically framed an issue with regard to jurisdiction and held the issue in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the entire cause of action arose within Ambattur and therefore, suit should have been filed only before the Ambattur Court.

                   11.1. Sections 19 of CPC provides for suits for compensation being filed before the Court where the wrong was done or where the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. Thus Section 19 CPC, gives an option to the plaintiff to choose the Court. Here the plaintiff has chosen the Court where the defendant resides. It is permissible under Section 19 CPC to institute the suit before the High Court as well as the City Civil Court. Thus there was no error occasioned on account of the plaintiff having filed the suit before the Original Side of this Court and subsequently, the said suit being transferred to the City Civil Court. The Trial Court has rightly considered the scope of Section 19 CPC and held the suit to be filed before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Point No.1 is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

12. Point No.2:

Coming to the Issue of damages and quantum, it is not in dispute that both the plaintiff and the defendant are trading allegations against the other, with regard to the financial irregularities. The fact remains that the defendant was the Treasurer of Venkatapuram Cultural Association and he was removed from primary membership of the said Trust on 14.06.2009. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant points fingers at the plaintiff for his removal. Ex.A1-letter is the communication in respect of which the suit has been filed. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff has withdrawn 10% of donation amount as commission and mis-appropriated the same. The letter was addressed to the Round Table of India. According to the plaintiff, even the alleged withdrawals made by him to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on 21.07.2008 and Rs.27,000/- on 22.07.2008 have been returned to the Round Table of India and the defendant who was the Treasurer at that relevant of time has questioned the same. The defendant claims that he overheard the plaintiff’s conversation with one Muthu, staff of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff informed the said Muthu that he wanted to change the donation returned entry to some other expense. Therefore, the defendant states that Ex.A1 letter was sent to Round Table of India only to clarify whether the withdrawn amounts were received by them as claimed by the plaintiff.

                   12.1. The issuance of Ex.A1 letter is not in dispute. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the original letter has not been filed by both the parties, when admittedly, the issuance of the letter is not in dispute, I do not see why the plaintiff should be non-suited on this account alone.

                   12.2. As regard the argument of Mr.Antony Roch Kamal, learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff has not established to be a famous personality, which is a pre-requisite for claiming damages for loss of reputation, there is no law which entitles only personalities with name and fame in the Society to seek compensation for defamation. Every person is entitled to a reputation of their stature and if such reputation is infringed or sought to be lowered by any other person, with an intention to lower the image of the said person, then the aggrieved person is certainly entitled to seek compensation for defamation. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff has not established that he is a famous personality, he is not eligible or competent to claim compensation.

                   12.3. It is now left to be seen whether in and by issuance of the said letter, the defendant has harmed the reputation of the plaintiff in any manner and if so, to what extent and what is the amount that the plaintiff is entitled to by way of compensation.

                   12.4. Admittedly, during the relevant point of time, the defendant was the Treasurer of Venkatapuram Cultural Association and he had complained to the President of the Association that the plaintiff had misused his office and collected monies from teachers. Ex.B7 is the letter dated 25.04.2009. In the said letter, there is no reference to the alleged withdrawals made by the plaintiff towards commission and mis-appropriating the same. Ex.B12, evidences the fact that the defendant himself was removed from primary membership of the association and even in the very same meeting, it had been resolved that members who obtained donation are entitled for 10% towards expenditure for the same. As the Treasurer, the defendant was in possession of the cash registers. Admittedly, the defendant had not produced the account books or the registers to establish his case that the plaintiff had withdrawn amounts towards commission for procuring donations for the Trust. The Trial Court has rightly held that the defendant could have resolved the issue within the Trust, especially being the Treasurer and there was no necessity to escalate the issue to Round Table of India by sending a letter to ascertain whether the plaintiff had returned the withdrawn monies to the Trust.

                   12.5. It is also the case of the defendant that the defendant overheard the plaintiff’s conversation with the staff, an Accountant by name, Muthu and the discussion revolved around changing the entry from “donation returned” to some other expense. However, the defendant has not chosen to examine the said Accountant, Muthu to establish his contentions in this regard. The defendant has not taken up the issue directly with the plaintiff or atleast through the Association, but instead has chosen to write a letter to the Round Table of India. The defendant has also claimed that he enquired with the plaintiff, but there is nothing to substantiate the same. Ex.A4, reply sent by the Association also vindicates the plaintiff’s stand that the amounts were withdrawn with consent and the accusation of the defendant was rejected. The defendant himself has been directed not to enter the School premises and he was called upon to return all articles belonging to the Institution. Therefore, the defendant has developed an ill feeling and has been having a grouse against the plaintiff ever since his removal. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff that the letter directly addressed to the Round Table of India was only with an intention to defame the plaintiff and nothing short.

                   12.6. Even Ex.A1 letter dated 13.06.2009, which is the cause of action for the suit for defamation is claimed to be clarificatory letter send by the defendant as to whether the amounts withdrawn by the plaintiff have been received by the Round Table of India or not. The defendant admittedly was removed from the post of Treasurer even in June 2009 i.e., on on 03.06.2009. Whileso, he did not even have the authority to represent the Trust to issue Ex.A1 letter on 13.06.2009, after being fully aware and conscious of the fact that he was no longer even a primary member of the Trust. Therefore, there is no reason to believe the version projected by appellant/defendant that the letter was issued in the interest of the Trust and as a Treasurer, he wanted clarification. The only reason for such a letter appears clearly to be motivated to bring down the reputation of the plaintiff. The findings of the Trial Court in this regard are very much in order, considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record and I do not see any scope for interference with the findings that the defendant with an intention to cause disrepute to the reputation of the plaintiff has chosen to issue Ex.A1 letter.

                   12.7. Now it falls down to the quantum which the plaintiff is entitled to towards damages. Admittedly, in the pre-suit notice, the plaintiff claimed a fanciful sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, however when the suit was filed before the Original Side of this Court, the claim was restricted to Rs.11,00,000/-. The plaintiff has not been able to substantiate his claim for damages to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/-, excepting for the allegations and self-serving averments in the plaint and the oral evidence adduced in the witness box. The Trial Court holding that there is no standard yardship to measure quantum of damages sustained by the plaintiff, a nominal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would offer solace to the plaintiff in view of the plaintiff establishing that the defendant has harmed the good will and reputation that the plaintiff has enjoyed.

                   12.8. Insofar as the decision that has been relied on by Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel in TVS Employees' Federation and others Vs. TVS and Sons Ltd. And Another, reported in (1994) SCC Online Mad 498, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held a false and unprivileged publication in writing of defamatory material, a maliciously written or printed publication, which tends to blacken a person’s reputation or to expose to public hatred, contempt or ridicule or to injure his business or profession, accusing in writing and printing against the character of a person, which affects his reputation in that it tends to hold him upto ridicule, contempt, shame and disgrace or obloquy, or to degrade in the estimation of the community or to induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right thinking persons or to make him an object to reproach or to diminish his respectability or abridge his comforts; to change his position in society for the worse or to dishonour or discredit him in the estimation of the public or his friends and acquintances, or to deprive him of firendly intercourse in Society, or cause him to be shunned or avoided, or where it is charged that he has violated his public duty as a public officer, said almost in any language which upon its face has a natural tendency to injure a man's reputation either generally or with respect to his occupation is libel.

                   12.9. The Hon’ble Division Bench held that 'libellous per se' is 'actionable per se' and words themselves would speak of the injury if they cause to some one and the legal injury unavoidable, the Court must presume in favour of the action. The Hon’ble Division Bench further held that the expression which are 'libellous per quod' would require specific pleading and proof of how they have caused any legal injury to someone. No doubt, the plaintiff has pleaded about the damage caused to his reputation but has not examined any independent witness to establish as to how and in what manner and to what extent he has suffered mentally and thereby, he is entitled to be compensated by the defendant. The Trial Court has taken note of the failure of the plaintiff to establish the quantum claimed to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/-. However, considering the fact that the act of defamation has been proved beyond doubt and taking into account the status of the plaintiff and his involvement in the public domain, has proceeded to award only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages. I do not find that in such a case where the plaintiff has established beyond doubt that the defendant has caused harm to his reputation, should be left high and dry, merely on account of not being able to establish actual loss suffered by him. The Trial Court has in its discretion, thought it fit to restrict the claim to only Rs.1,00,000/-, which I do not find to be excessive or even arbitrary, considering the nature of the defamation involved in the present case.

13. In view of the above, I do not find any requirement arising to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court awarding decree of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Point No.2 is also answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

14. In fine, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.