Karnataka High Court

Sri U M Chandregowda vs Sri V H Ummarabba on 5 January, 2021

Author: Sachin Shankar Byssmj

                            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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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,