1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
RSA NO.2708 OF 2011 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI U.M. CHANDREGOWDA
S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O J M ROAD
MUDIGERE TOWN AND POST
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI V.H. UMMARABBA
S/O HASANABBA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/O GANGANAMAKKI
MUDIGERE TOWN AND POST
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT -577 132
....RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 22.9.2011 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.80/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT, CHIKMAGALUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:24.6.2009
PASSED IN O.S.NO.62/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MUDIGERE.
2
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The top noted second appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the divergent findings of the Courts below.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The present appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent/defendant in O.S.No.62/2008 claiming damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with court costs against the respondent/defendant on the ground that the conduct of the respondent/defendant has lowered the reputation of the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff averred in the plaint that he is a respectable law abiding citizen and commanding respect from all walks of life. The appellant/plaintiff has further contended that he was an arrack contractor during the year 1990-98 and in the year 1993, the appellant/plaintiff raided and arrested the respondent/defendant with the help of Excise Department staff when respondent/defendant was 3 illegally preparing arrack and got registered the case against the respondent/defendant. The appellant/plaintiff has also further stated that he had advanced a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to the son of respondent/defendant for supply of coffee and as the respondent/defendant's son failed to supply the same, he lodged a complaint against the respondent/defendant's son for recovery of the amount.
The grievance of the appellant/plaintiff is that respondent/defendant with a malafide intention lodged false complaint with the jurisdictional Mudigere police and complaint was also submitted to the Chief Minister of Karnataka by letter dated 22.06.2007. The appellant/plaintiff has specifically contended that the contents of the letter addressed to the Chief Minister are defamatory. The appellant/plaintiff has further contended that false complaints were intentionally filed in order to harm the reputation, honour, respect and dignity of the appellant/plaintiff. The grievance of the appellant/plaintiff is that on account of false complaints, the police officials have 4 made enquiry with the appellant/plaintiff on public road in the presence of public and his friends. Further, police officials have also made frequent visits to his house for further enquiry and this has resulted in cancellation of marriage of the appellant/plaintiff's son. The appellant/plaintiff has also stated that on account of police enquiry, the friends and relatives of appellant/plaintiff have underestimated the dignity and honour of the appellant/plaintiff. This compelled the appellant/plaintiff to issue a legal notice to the respondent/defendant on 27.08.2007 calling upon the respondent/defendant to apologize publicly for having lodged false complaint against the appellant/plaintiff.
The appellant/plaintiff has further contended that inspite of receipt of legal notice, the respondent/defendant has not come forward to seek apology from the appellant/plaintiff. This conduct of the respondent/defendant has caused immense damage to the reputation of the appellant/plaintiff. 5 On these set of facts, the appellant/plaintiff has filed suit seeking damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
On receipt of summons, the respondent/defendant having tendered appearance contested the suit by filing written statement. The respondent/defendant stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The respondent/defendant having denied the allegations against him has contended that the appellant/plaintiff was not an arrack contractor but he was working as a Manager under the arrack contractor. A specific allegation is also made against the appellant/plaintiff that he used to register false criminal case under Excise Act by influencing the Excise officials against the persons who were not in good terms with him. The respondent/defendant have also specifically contended in the written statement that the appellant/plaintiff is not residing in J.M.Road, Mudigere but he is residing at Uduse Village and hence, the question of his son's marriage getting cancelled on account of visit by police officials would not arise. 6 The respondent/defendant has also stated in the written statement that the appellant/plaintiff is not a prudent man having reputation, respect, honour and dignity before the public. On these set of defences, the respondent/defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.
Based on the rival contentions, the Trial Court formulated the following issues:
"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has lowered the reputation of plaintiff in the eye of society?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the Act of the defendant has caused loss to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.50,000/-?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages as claimed by him? If so, how much amount?
4) What order or decree?"
The appellant/plaintiff to substantiate the averments made in the plaint has lead in ocular evidence by examining 7 himself as PW.1. To corroborate the averments made in the pleading, he has relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-11. The respondent/defendant to refute the contentions of the appellant/plaintiff has examined himself as DW.1 and by way of rebuttal evidence has produced copy of plaint in O.S.No.77/2006 as per Ex.D-1.
The Trial Court having assessed the oral and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 in the affirmative by holding that the appellant/plaintiff has proved that respondent/defendant by his conduct has lowered the reputation of the appellant/plaintiff in the eye of public. However, while answering issue No.2 in the negative, the Trial Court has come to conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove that the act of respondent/defendant has caused damage to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. However, the learned Judge having answered issue No.2 in the negative, has proceeded to award damages to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. On these set of reasonings, the learned Judge has partly 8 decreed the suit directing the respondent/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the appellant/plaintiff by way of compensation for making false allegations.
The respondent/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Court below preferred appeal in R.A.No.80/2010 before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has reversed the judgment and decree of the Court below by allowing the appeal and consequently dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The Appellate Court being the final fact finding authority has recorded a finding that mere filing of complaints and addressing a letter to the Chief Minister would not in itself amount to defamatory and thereby lower the dignity or reputation of the appellant/plaintiff. The Appellate Court having examined the pleadings in the plaint and also having assessed the ocular evidence of the appellant/plaintiff has come to conclusion that though a plea is taken in the plaint by 9 the appellant/plaintiff that his reputation was brought down on account of police officials having enquired him in regard to the complaints filed by the respondent/defendant in a public place in presence of his friends and relatives. However, to substantiate the said allegation in the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff has neither examined any eye witness nor placed on record any cogent evidence to establish that police officials based on false complaint had enquired the appellant/plaintiff in a public place. In absence of this material evidence, the Appellate Court was of the view that the specific pleadings indicating that conduct of the respondent/defendant in lodging complaint had virtually caused damage to the dignity and reputation is not proved by the appellant/plaintiff.
The Appellate Court has also come to conclusion that the learned Judge having answered issue No.2 in the negative by holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to establish that he has incurred loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of 10 frivolous complaints lodged by the respondent/defendant, erred in decreeing the suit by awarding Rs.15,000/- towards damages. The Appellate Court was of the view that no reasons are assigned by the Trial Court while awarding Rs.15,000/- towards damages to the appellant/plaintiff. On these set of reasonings, the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
The appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the clinching evidence on record would clearly establish that the respondent/defendant had indulged in filing false complaints and thereby is responsible for humiliation that appellant/plaintiff had to undergo. Learned counsel to 11 buttress his arguments has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause, a Registered Society vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1999 SC 2979. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Smt. Sova Rani Dutta vs. Debabrata Dutta reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 186. Relying on these two judgments, he would submit to this Court that the clinching evidence on record would clearly indicate that the respondent/defendant has indulged in filing frivolous complaints. The evidence on record would also establish that the act of respondent/defendant has caused humiliation to the appellant/plaintiff in the eye of public as well as his close friends and relatives.
4. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would also take this Court to Exs.P-4, P-7 and P-8. Relying on these documents, he would submit to this Court that the appellant/plaintiff has 12 succeeded in establishing the humiliation and damage to his reputation. Learned counsel would further submit to this Court that the respondent/defendant having filed false complaints has not at all produced any rebuttal evidence to justify his actions during trial. In absence of rebuttal evidence, he would submit to this Court that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly come to conclusion that there is damage to the reputation and dignity of the appellant/plaintiff is also lowered on account of the conduct of the respondent/defendant and thereby having regard to the facts of the case, was justified in awarding Rs.15,000/- towards damages. He would submit to this Court that the First Appellate Court was not at all justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which was based on legal evidence available on record and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by the respondent/defendant. 13
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the records.
6. The material emerging from the records clearly indicates that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present suit for damages by specifically contending that on account of frivolous complaints, the police officials had made enquiry at public place in presence of appellant/plaintiff's friends as well as relatives. To substantiate this averment made in the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff has not at all examined any witness. Though plaintiff has relied on the documents and the complaint lodged by the respondent/defendant, on perusal of the document at Ex.P-4 and consequent statement of appellant/plaintiff recorded as per Ex.P-5, what emerges is that based on this complaint, no crime is registered against the appellant/plaintiff. Though the respondent/defendant filed complaints, the same is not set in motion. It is only in these cases where a frivolous complaint would result into a malicious 14 prosecution and cause immense damage to a person, the damages are to be awarded on account of a person being compelled to undergo long ordeal of frivolous litigation. In the present case on hand, there is absolutely no material indicating that consequent to the complaints lodged by the respondent/defendant, the appellant/plaintiff was forced to face a malicious prosecution. In that view of the matter, the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would not be squarely applicable to the present case on hand.
7. Though this Court would have no cavil over the proposition laid down in the judgment relied by the appellant/plaintiff in Common Cause, a Registered Society (supra) and also the proposition laid in Sova Rani Dutta (supra), this Court is of the view that the Appellate Court being the final fact finding authority had reassessed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. Mere lodging of a 15 complaint with the Chief Minister by addressing a letter or merely because the respondent/defendant lodged some frivolous complaints, that in itself would not constitute an act which would lower the dignity of the appellant/plaintiff.
8. Para 5 of the plaint would set out the grievance alleged by the appellant/plaintiff. The same is culled out as follows:
"5. The defendant has lodged such false complaint containing defamatory material intentionally in order to harm the reputation, honour, respect and dignity of the plaintiff. Because of the false complaint, the police have made enquiry with the plaintiff on a public road in the presence of public and friends of the plaintiff and have also made frequent visits to the house of the plaintiff for an enquiry because of which the people who had come to negotiate the marriage alliance of the son of the plaintiff had returned back by saying that the plaintiff has got police cases etc., and that the police are visiting his house often. Besides the alliance which was 16 proposed was cancelled the marriage did not take place with the girl which was under negotiations."
9. Though the appellant/plaintiff has raised specific pleadings in regard to damage to his reputation, honour and respect, however, the same is not at all substantiated by producing cogent and clinching evidence. The filing of the complaint has not resulted in malicious investigation and consequent malicious prosecution which would be a requisite ingredient to lay a claim for damages. The Appellate Court has dealt with this aspect in detail. In absence of material indicating that the reputation of appellant/plaintiff was damaged on account of conduct of the respondent/defendant, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the same would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmities and would not warrant any interference.
17
10. The grounds urged in the appeal memo do not indicate any substantial questions of law that would arise for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA