IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ,

TIRUPATI
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
WRITTEN ARGUMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
1.

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

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

2.

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

in

the Plaint filed

O.S.289/2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judges 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.
3.

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.
4.

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/Plaintiffs 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/Plaintiffs 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.
5.

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/
Defendant.

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

:: 4 ::
settlement of issues regarding the properties of the Appellant/Plaintiff. The
Appellant/Plaintiff also led before the Honorable Court oral evidence from
two persons having knowledge of the general character of the Plaintiff. PW
2 is the immediate neighbour of the Appellant/plaintiffs since more than
three decades. PW 3 is the cousin of the Appellant/plaintiff.
6.

The Respondent/Defendant in his chief affidavit he persisted that his

statements are all true and reiterated that the Appellant/Plaintiffs father
himself made adverse comments against his sons character. He claimed
personal knowledge of the affairs of the Appellant/Plaintiffs family and
maintained that relying on hearsay and alleged news paper publications he
commented on the character of the Plaintiff. 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 Respondent/Defendant has not submitted any
evidence whatsoever before the Honourable Court.
7.

All the relevant points in the cross-examination of PW1, PW 2 and

PW 3 and of DW 1 were aptly discussed in the written argument submitted

before the Trial court.
8.

But the Trial Court dismissed the suit without judicious consideration

of the facts and material placed by the Appellant/Plaintiff.

The

judgment is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

Hence this Appeal.
9.

The essential ingredients under law for in an action for Defamation

are four in number: 1. There should be a statement, 2. The statement should

have been published, 3. The statement should be a false statement; or, if it is
true it should have been made and published without a justifiable reason,
and 4. There should be damage to the character or reputation of the Plaintiff.

:: 5 ::
10.

In the instant case there a Statement. Since it is typewritten it is in a

permanent form. Admittedly it is part of the Plaint in O.S.289/2000 on the

file of the Court of the Honourable Principle Junior Civil Judge Tirupati.
11.

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.

Since a

period of over a hundred years there are numerous instances of

statements in legal proceedings being subject of action for Defamation.

The present case is no exception and it is not covered by any privilege.
12.

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. By such a pleading the Respondent/
Defendant has adopted the defense of justification. Halsburys Laws of
England explains this stand as follows:
The Appellant/plaintiff must also allege that the statement is false, but
since the law presumes that a person is of good character unless and until the
contrary is alleged and proved, the burden is on the Respondent/defendant of
alleging affirmatively and proving that the defamatory statement which the
Respondent/defendant published is true. The defense of truth is only
required on the assumption that the Respondent/Defendant has published a
defamatory statement. It may be pleaded alternatively to the whole or part;
but it is a separate defense, and must not be treated as part of the issue of
publication. The allegation is a defense of truth of the statement complained
of is called a defense of justification.
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.
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.

:: 6 ::
13.

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; 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 without any
legal excuse, 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.

prayed for.

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. 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.
The statement consists of two aspects: son taking interest in respect of father
and his general character as evident in his way of life. The first aspect as
alleged by the Defendant is a question of fact. But the words wayward life
as used to depict the second aspect before being a question of fact are
basically defamatory, that is to say, prima face defamatory.
Nelsons commentary of the Indian Penal Code(1970.Vol 3. p 2766)
deals with this condition as follows:
27.Expressions

relating to nature, character etc.: Expressions which

tend to blacken the character of a person which are calculated to vilify a man
and bring him into hatred, contempt or ridicule would be ground for
indictment, or those which set the complainant in discreditable scurrilous,
ignominious, or ludicrous, light, would be defamatory.
It would be defamatory to characterize a person as goonda which
is a well understood term, or to allege that the complaint sings indecent

songs in the public, is a drunkard and abuses girls and women and is a

:: 7 ::
goonda, or to describe a person in the heading of a defamatory pamphlet as
shariff badmah , 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, or to impute dishonesty, or immorality, or to

charge a person with blackmailing, or to say that all officer of the British
Government were all beasts and pigs in their conduct, or to write of a man
that he has the itch, and stank of brimstone, would be defamatory.
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, although it does not expose him to hatred. It is enough that it

tends to hold a person to contempt or ridicule. In general, any charge of
immoral conduct is defamatory, although in matters not punishable by law.
It is beyond question defamatory to charge another with fraudulent,
dishonest, or dishonourable conduct or motives. More that a hundred years
ago it was held that it was defamatory to call a man a villain, a swindler, a
rogue or a rascal. Such words obviously through contumely on the person
traduced.
So at common law it has always been defamatory to impute unchastity to a
woman or girl, and such imputation is now actionable per se.
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.
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. 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.
Cambridge Advanced learners Dictionary gives the meaning to the word
wayward as ( especially of a persons behaviour) changeable, selfish, and
difficult to control.

:: 8 ::
The famous Sankaranarayanas English-Telugu Dictionary explains the
word wayward as

avidheyudaina,

anagani , cheppinattu vinani,

disobedient, froward, perverse, wilful, taking ones way.

In considering the meaning of a word in an issue of defamation total
reliance may not be placed on the lexicons alone. 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. Admittedly the plaintiff
understood the word to mean an irresponsible behaviour and the Defendant
readily endorsed it and further attempted to justify its use. Though it is an
expression in English the sense it is understood in Telugu is not so limited to
its meaning in the lexicons. 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. At least three word frequently used in Telugu
are nearer to the English

wayward. They are poramboku, aavaara and

bekhatar. 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. The word aavaara is of Hindi origin and reflects a
character who generally wanders around without any commitment to any
thing. The word poramboku is mostly used to denote wasteful or wasted as
applied to land, it applies also to an entity not belonging to any one
particularly. Applied to a person poramboku means an aimless, indisciplined,
wasteful person. By common usage and common understanding the English
word wayward carries shades of all the three telugu words aavaara, bekhatar
and poramboku.
It is one thing to call a peson a selfish person,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. 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. Since the Defendant admitted that he has used the
word in the same sense the Plaintiff understood and took objection to, the

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.
:: 9 ::
15. The trial court committed an error in coming to conclusion that the
Respondent/Defendant not in good faith simply based on his assertion. The
trail court failed to take cognizance of the ill-will patently reflected in the
written statement and the addition of further defamatory statements..
OS.289/2001 is a title suit. And in a title suite there is absolutely no validity
for character evaluation.
Even to serve his alleged cause of action the impugned statement will be of
no consequential support under section52 Evidence Act. Any reference to a
persons character even as a purported evidentiary value will never be
treated as relevant. Section 52 Evidence Act is :
In civil cases , 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 .
16. 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. 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 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.
17. 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.

The Appellant/Plaintiff has never stated or indicated that he was not taking
care of other things.
:: 10 ::
18.

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.W.3 that he was in Bangalore for sometime due to his
employment.
The trial court has completely ignored the corroborative evidences filed by
the Appellant/Plaintiff. It is highly unimaginable to conclude that

committed journalist, 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.
19.

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.
20.

In the present suit character is the issue. In order to establish his

credentials in respect of character and reputation the Appelant/Plaintiff has

submitted before the Trial court several documents, which bear direct
testimony to his intellectual pursuits, literary achievements, social activities
and commitment to spiritual goals. While some documents are testimonials
of high appreciation of the Plaintiffs 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.
21. The trial court has totally ignored to take note of EX.A4 Presidents
Scout Certificate received by the Plaintiff way back in 1966 while he was a
high school student. Duely signed by the erstwhile President on India Late
Sri S.Radhakrishan the certificate appreciates the dedication of the Plaintiff
to the cause of the international Scout movement. 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.

:: 11 ::
A Scouts motto is to serve humanity irrespective of any barriers whatsoever.
It is well said and oft-repeated that once a Scout always a Scout.
The document being primary document and being a Certificate awarded by
the President of India, it is a public document and its contents are authentic
and bear the seal and authority of the highest office in the land.
It is highly unimaginable that an acclaimed service minded Scout would lead
a wayward life and ignore his own family .
22.

The Plaintiff is a double postgraduate with an M.A. Degree in English

and another M.A. Degree in Telugu. Ex. A 6 is a testimonial by former

Professor of English Dr.G.Nageswara Rao appreciating the Plaintiffs
scholarly pursuits and literary merits. Dr. Nageswara Rao also made a
specific mention of the plaintiff being a gentleman. Ex. A 7 is a
testimonial by former Vice-Chancellor of S.V.University Late Shri
G.N.Reddy regarding the academic and literary qualities and qualifications
of the Plaintiff. Ex. A 4 being a Certificate by the United States Information
Service testifies the Plaintiffs dedication to international understanding and
enthusiasm towards continental cultures.
23.

As a journalist the Plaintiff worked for two popular Telugu news-

papers:Andhra Prabha and Andhra Jyothi. While Ex.A8 to Ex.A 11 testify

his employment in Andhra Prabha Bangalore , Ex.A 12, A 13 and A 14 are
the evidences regarding his serivice in Andhra Jyothi in Tirupati. 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 career as working journalist for a period of over a decade in daily
newspapers establishes beyond any doubt punctuality, dedication to work
and excellence in profession.
It can be anything but true that an active responsible journalist can be
described as a wayward person.

:: 12 ::
24.

Ex.A 15 is Constitution and Articles of association of Sri

Sugnanananda Ashramam Tirupati. The Ashram is an institution established

by the Plaintiffs father Koneti Venkataswamy in memory of his late brother
and Guru Sri Sugnanananda Swamiji. It can be ascertained from this
document that in fact while the Plaintiffs 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.
25

. Ex. A 16 IRAVATHY is an anthology of short stories written and

published by the plaintiff during the year 1973 . It contains stories written in
different periodicals which were popular in the state of Andhra Pradesh .
This exhibit establishes that at a very young age the plaintiff was having a
very wide popularity in the state. Ex. A 17 is a novel entitled PREMA
written by the plaintiff during 1975. 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. Ex.A 18

RAATRI is a long poem written and published

by the plaintiff in the year 1978. 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.
26. Ex. A 19 is a novel RENDU OKATE written by the plaintiff and
published by the Chittoor District Writers Co-operative Publication
Association , Chittoor during the year 1977. This exhibit establishes without
any doubt that the plaintiff was engaged in literary and publication activity
and widely recognized in Chittoor district.
27.

Ex. A 20 KALIYUGA DAIVAM is the story of Lord Venkateswara

written by the plaintiff in the year 1982.The plaintiff begs for the kind
attention of the Honourable court to consider the special significance
regarding this book . Being the story of the presiding deity of Tirupati , Lord

:: 13 ::
Venkateswara , the book reflects the plaintiffs religious bent of mind and
commitment to moral values. And this book is dedicated to Sri
Sugnanananda Swamiji who is the late brother and Guru of the plaintiffs
father Late Sri Koneti Venkataswamy . It can be seen from the inner page
that the book was actually published with the financial assistance of
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, which clearly establishes that the
plaintiffs literary merit is recognized and patronized by the TTD. Ex. A 34
is further proof of the proceedings of TTD regarding the financial aid to the
plaintiff for publication of these books. Ex. A 21is classical metrical poetry
SUGNANA SATAKAM composed by the plaintiff in the year 1993. 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 plaintiffs father late Sri Koneti Venkataswamy . A
particular mention of this publication can be found in paragraph 16 of the
Will of the plaintiffs father, which is Ex.A 36. Ex.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. These three publications KALIYUGA
DAIVAM, 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
plaintiffs father.
To describe a person running a spiritual concern established by his father as
a wayward person can be far from truth.
28. Ex. 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.
29. Exhibits A 24,A 25,A 26,A 27,A 28,A 29,A 30 and A 31are all very
popular novels written by the plaintiff and serially published in most popular

telugu weekly magazines: SWATHI WEEKLY, ANDHRAPRABHA

:: 14 ::
WEEKLY, ANDHRAJYOTHI WEEKLY. 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.
30.

The plaintiff humbly prays the attention of the Honble court Ex.A 32

being a bunch of 25letters submitted before the Honble court as samples of

responses from readers belonging to different cross sections of society.
These letters of admiration and appreciation and fanfare received by the
plaintiff undoubtedly demonstrate the popularity of the plaintiff in the
general public.
31.

Ex. A 35 is a testimonial of appreciation given to the plaintiff by the

late poet-laureate of Andhra Pradesh Dr.Dasaradhi. The contents of the

testimonial place the plaintiff in a very high order of literary brilliance and
achievement.
32. The plaintiff prays for the mercy of the Honble 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
plaintiffs father. It can be read in this letter that the writer of the letter
Sri.Krishnaiah was participating in programmes in the ashram run by the
plaintiffs father which was meticulously assisted by the plaintiff. And late
Sri Krishnaiah was witness to numerous occasions in which the plaintiff and
his father shared the same dias in conducting DHARMIKOPANYASAM
programmes.
33.

Ex.A 36 dated 5.2.1996 is a certified copy of the registered Will

executed by the father of the plaintiff Late K.Venkataswamy in favour of the

plaintiff. This document is very significant in establishing beyond any

reasonable doubt the character, reputation, literary merit, commitment,

:: 15 ::
integrity and dedication of the plaintiff. This is the Will and last testation of
the plaintiffs father in respect of specific property in Survey no: 694 in
Tirupati town. A self-acquistion by the plaintiffs father, this property has
been enjoyed and preserved by 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 plaintiffs father
reposed in the plaintiff here-in. In paragraph 15 of the Will, Late Sri
Venkataswamy recited a significant occasion on 13.3.1993 being the
PUNARUJJEVANA UTSAVAM , from which date the activities of the
ashramam gained a new dimension and high popularity. In paragraph 16 of
the Will Venkataswamy stated
Whereas under the above background my only son by name
K.S.V.Narasimhuu herein after called K.S.V. who is a holder of two Masters
Degrees in Arts, aged about 43years and widower with only one son, prolific
writer and poet, 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 ,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

:: 16 ::
Further in Para 17 Sri Venkataswamy stated present trustee K.S.V. 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. 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, 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 , conducting the meditating classes in its premises ,
running of schools and colleges , Yoga institutions

, arranging of

Dharmikopanyaasams , spreading of feeling of brotherhood in all classes of

society, uplifting of womanhood ,doing social, spiritual and cultural
activities and such other things.
All the above recitals by the plaintiffs father in favour of his son are
self-explanatory. 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,
the Swamiji, and also serving humanity for spiritual upliftment.
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.
The recitals reflect not only the fathers 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.
The recitals undoubtedly show that the father had absolute trust in the work
and way of life of the son.

:: 1 7 ::
34 . It is submitted that the Appellant/Plaintiff has lead oral evidence from
two persons having intimate knowledge of his general character and
reputation. P.W. 2 Sri T.Rangaswamy is a serious citizen of 76years age
residing in house bearing 123,G.S.Mada Street and next-door neighbour of
the plaintiff. Sri Rangaswamy in his affidavit has stated all the facts
regarding the Plaintiffs career as a journalist and services to the Ashramam
established by his father and he enjoys reputation in the public. 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.
Sri Rangaswamy categorically stated that the plaintiff never lead wayward
life and he has been leading responsible life committed to his family.
The Defendants cross-examination of P.W. 2 proved nothing against the
facts asserted by P.W. 2. In the light of documentary evidences produced by
the plaintiff regarding the employment of plaintiff as also services to the
Ashramam , it is of no material consequence that it if P.W. 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. Significantly
in the cross, P.W. 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. 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. 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.
Oral evidence given by P.W. 3 Sri K.V.Prasad is equally of appreciable
merit. He has endorsed all the facts regarding the professional and family
life of the plaintiff. It is true that P.W. 3 is the cousin brother of the Plaintiff.
The defendant in the cross-examination has elicited from P.W.3 that he has

:: 18 ::
received a gift of 45cents of property from the plaintiff and the said property
received by him is worth around 10lakhs of rupees. But on this ground alone
, his testimony regarding the character of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed.
Considering the fact that the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff in
this suit is one lakh rupees, it would be illogical to assume that the plaintiff
would have gifted a property worth ten lakh rupees to P.W. 3. 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.W.3s testimony.
The plaintiff begs the attention of the Honble 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, the plaintiff has no objection to decree the
suit. Very much as a response to the Defendants wager the plaintiff has
lead P.W. 3 ,his cousin brother ,to depose in this matter in the interest of
justice. It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that P.W.3 is not a
well-educated person and not used to testations in courts of Justice. His
statement that while Late Venkataswamy was alive , 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. In the light of documentary evidence exhibits A 8, A 9,
A 10 and A 11, it can clearly be seen that plaintiff was in employment in
Andhra Prabha at Bangalore ,for a period of four years only.
35 . The testimonies of P.W2 and P.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. It has been
well observed in various legal commentaries that evidence regarding a
persons character can be effectively given by relatives and close friends

only, since character is something which is not exposed to the general world
and it cannot be judged by total strangers.

:: 19 ::
36.

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, a prolific writer, 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,
honesty and discipline. 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. 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.
37.

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. The statement is in good faith and honest
opinion is the assertion of the defendant. In para5 of the written statement,
towards the end of the Para, the Defendant has categorically stated, There
are no defamatory allegations made against the Plaintiff and in fact it is truth
which he commented upon. In para4 of the chief affidavit filed by the
Defendant, he stated The factual aspects taken place on that date was
pleaded in O.S.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.S.No:289/2000 and as such the question of
defamatory statements made by me against the present plaintiff doesnt
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 Defendants imputation
of leading a wayward life.

38.

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 question of burden
of proof is of immediate consideration.
Under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code it is the intention of the
Defendant that makes the statement a defamatory statement. A careful
examination of the definition of Defamation under section 499 is essential
Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by
visible representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such
imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the
cases herein after excepted, to defame the person.
It can be observed that the definition of defamation by itself doesnt contain
any reference to either truth or false truth. 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.
While the plaintiff establishes the publication of a statement prima
face defamatory, the burden of proof that the statement in question doesnt
amount defamation is on the defendant. The general principle of Law
involved on the part of the Defendant in this aspect is that every person is
presumed to be honest, good and decent unless the contrary is proved. In
pursuance of this principle it is settled Law that the owners of proof is
shifted on the Defendant under section 105 Evidence Act.
Section 105 Evidence Act reads:
When a person is accused of any offence, 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 other part of the
same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the court
shall presume the absence of such circumstances.

:: 21 ::
Fields Law of Evidence (1972, Volume 5 , page 4460) explains
this position :
Defamation: If A is accused of defamation, the burden of proving
that he comes within the exceptions in the penal code , section 499 , 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. In a prosecution for
defamation, assuming the words to be prima face defamatory, 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 , in order to entitle him to the
benefit of section 79 , or of Exception 1 or 9 to section 499 , Penal Code.
39. 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 Honble court. Nor did he adduce any oral evidence
to the effect that he has acted in good faith while he was making the
impugned statement. Both in the written statement and in the Affidavit the
Defendant has loquaciously pleaded that many junior advocates and clerks
who worked under the Plaintiffs 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. In essence by operation of section 105 Evidence Act , the
defendant can only be presumed to be having no evidence at all to
substantiate his contention that the impugned statement is truth. It is false
because it is base-less.
40.

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. The concept of good
faith as applicable in legal proceedings is enshrined in Section 52 Indian
Penal Code:

Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or

believed without due care and attention.

:: 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. What is due care and attention depends
upon the position in which a man finds himself and varies in different cases.
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.
Nelsons Indian Penal Code (1966 , volume 1, page 193) quotes the
following observation relying on A Madras High Court decision , in re
Ganapathaiah Pillai A.I.R.1953 Madras , 936
The question of good faith is a question of fact and must be
gathered from the surrounding circumstances. Mere actual belief without
any reasonable grounds for believing is not simultaneous with good faith.
But good faith doesnt 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.
In the present case the Defendant is a businessman, presumably a man
of the world and as stated by him, a family man of two grown-up children.
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 Plaintiffs family particulars, apart
from particulars regarding the property he is residing in. 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. If
in fact he has taken due care and attention, he ought to have produced before
this Honble court relevant evidence, either documentary or oral to
substantiate his claim that he has acted in good faith. His incapacity to

produce any evidence what so ever only categorically proves that his claim
of good faith is absolutely false.

:: 23 ::
41.

The Appellant/Plaintiff pleads for the attention of the Honble court to

take judicious note of various contradicting, evasive and negligent

statements the Respondent/Defendant had made in his written statement, in
his affidavit and during his cross examination.
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 , his mother and sisters
aloof. 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 Plaintiffs father namely Koneti Venkataswamy
was living in door number 124 , Govindaraja Swamy south mada
street , till his death.
B) In the affidavit the Defendant in Para 5 stated the colleagues ,
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. But in his cross examination , 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.S.No:289/2000 on the file of The Principle Junior Civil
Judge , Tirupati. 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.P.Jyotimurthy , advocate , Tirupati , in his cross-examination
on affidavit he states that it is not true to suggest O.S.No:289/2000

was not filed by Sri.P.Jyotimurthy , advocate on my behalf. I do not

know Sri.P.Jyotimurthy, advocate at all.

:: 24 ::
D) In the chief affidavit, para 2. he makes out a plea that the plaintiff
being an advocate by profession filed the present suit with false and
untenable allegations. 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, the Defendant has stated that
O.S.No:289/2000 was not filed on the Plaintiff alone but all the
family members of the Plaintiff. In the cross he says, I do not
remember if I have shown the sisters of the Plaintiff as parties of the
suit in O.S.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.S.No: 289/2000. It is settled principle of Law that negligence negativates
good faith.
42. 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. Neither in the written statement nor in the Affidavit did
the plaintiff mention any particular reason or legal excuse for making the
said statement. 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. The said
statement has been made in a legal pleading seeking a civil remedy. His
locus standi in O.S.289/200 is that of a tenant and he has expressly denied
the title of the Plaintiff here in. The cause of action set forward by him is
that the Plaintiff herein along with his sisters and also instigated by his father

have adopted a violent and forceful attempt to evict him from house no:
339 , Gali street , in which he was tenant.

:: 25 ::
In essence, 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. 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.S.No 289/2000. 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.
43. Apart from making the impugned statement in the plaint of O.S
289/2000 the Respondent/Defendant has made repetition of the statement
during his pleadings in his written statement and also his affidavit. It is
settled Law that repetition of defamatory statement can lead to a fresh cause
of action on defamation. Nelsons 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. The previous
publication by another of defamatory words is no justifications for their
repetition. 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. 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.

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 Plaintiffs wife in suspicious
circumstances. And in so doing he stated that he relied in hearsay and
rumours in the society. It is settled Law that words charging a person with

having committed punishable offenses without a justified cause is itself

defamation. 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.
:: 26 ::
Nelsons 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. Conscious violation of Law to anothers prejudice is sufficient
though there may be no malice in fact. When defamatory words are prima
face libelous, legal malice must be presumed until the case of privilege is
made out.
39.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. 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.
45.

In the written statement in O.S.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 , Gali Street , 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, 3 and 4 in that suit. The Plaintiff pleads for the kind attention
of this Honble court to consider Exhibits 37 and 38. The Plaintiff in the
cross examination by the Defendant has stated that these documents are in
no way related to the present suite. Being related to a suit is altogether
different from being relevant. Being related implies identical or similar
cause of action in the nature of res judicata. Being relevant is having
reference in respect of merit and comparative evaluation. Exhibits 37 and 38
are relevant to the case in the same way as all the other Exhibits submitted

by the Plaintiff. The plaintiff

here by asserts that Exhibits 37 and 38 are

very much relevant for the present suit.

:: 27 ::
46.

Exhibit 37 dated 28/4/2006 being Lok Adalat award in

O.S.no:26/2002 on the file of Fourth Additional District Court , Tirupati

contains a term of reference with regards to settlement of properties between
the Plaintiff here in and his two sisters.
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.
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.
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.
The Plaintiff hereby pleads for the kind attention of the Honble court to
note Para3 of the said award proclaims that
the house bearing door no:339, Gali street , tirupati , 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 , 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 , ,hence the house bearing door no 339, in Ward number 6 in
Gali Street , tirupati described in Plaint C schedule is absolute property of
the 1st Defendant.
47.

The Appellant/Plaintiff here-in as a sequel to O.S 289/2000 has filed a

suit O.S.151/2000 on the file of Principle Senior Civil Judge, 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. 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. In

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. 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.S.26/2002 on the file of Fourth Additional District Judge.
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. In Para 3 of the same document the
Defendant has

stated that the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 77,550/-

the total rents deposited by him In the Court.

48.

These two facts of admissions by the Defendant in Ex.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. 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. 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 ,
his intention is clearly malice in fact . This attribute and state of mind of the
Defendant has prompted in acting with legal malice.
49.

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, 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. In fact the Defendant has mischievously made it a point
to humiliate not only the Plaintiff here-in but also his father Sri. Koneti
Venkataswamy. The Plaintiff begs for the kind attention of the Honourable to

court to the cause title of the plaint in OS 289/2000 where- in the calling of
the Defendant K.Venkataswamy is stated only as Landlord and not
mentioned as Advocate. 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. 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. 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.
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.
Defendant 2 in OS 289/2000 that is K.S.V.Narasimhulu is described as
Dependant and not as a writer as journalist. This is another example of the
malicious intent of the Defendant in the nature and spirit of the plaint in OS
289/2000. It is a legal requisite that document should be read as a whole
though particular examination of the portions in question is more severe. In
Para 8 of the said plaint which contains the impugned statement, 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. 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. 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 proceeding.
50

. Venkataramaiahs Law Lexican explains malice as follows :

Venkataramaiahs LAW LEXICON ( PAGE 840)

MALICE
Malice means the presence of improper and wrongful motive, that is to say,
intent to use the legal process in question for some other than its legally
appointed or appropriate purpose.

:: 30 ::
It is an element that can be established by inference from circumstances and
cannot be proved by evidence.
Malice is a wish to injure the party, rather than to vindicate the law. It is
indicative of an evil mind, which is disdainful of duties, social or legal, and
disregards the duties of others. In common parlance, malice means ill-will
against a person but in legal acceptance it means a wrongful act done
intentionally, without just cause or excuse. It is the doing of wrongful act to
another without legal excuse or justification willfully purposely. Malice
indicates varying shades of wickedness and includes cool depravity and
harshness of heart, vindictiveness, perpetration of injurious acts without
lawful excuse, cruelty, and recklessness of consequences and regardless of
ones obligation. It is a disposition, which implies injury to another without
cause from a spirit of revenge or from personal gratification. It may be
implied from a deliberate intention to do a wrong without justification. It is
not necessarily hate or ill will, but it is a state of mind, which is reckless of
law and of the legal rights of others.
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.
Malicious act is not one which is done accidentally, thoughtlessly or
negligently but designedly, willfully and wantonly.
In the light of the above citation theAppellent/ Plaintiff prays the
Honble 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.
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.
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

Respondant/Defendant

in

the

present

case

cannot

be

adequately

compensated in terms of money, even so since any compensation should be

:: 31 ::
something in the eye of Law, 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.
It is, therefore, prayed that the Honble Court may be pleased to set
aside the Decree and Judgment dated 30.08.2007 passed in O.S.No. 72/2001
on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Tirupati and decree the
same by allowing this appeal with costs throughout.

Advocate for Appellant.