Karnataka High Court
Shri. Gurudatt Umesh Kulkarni vs Dinakar Ananth Kamath on 16 January, 2024
-1-
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.6121/2010
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5033/2011
IN RSA No.6121/2010
BETWEEN:
KRISHNAMURTHY HEBBAR
S/O.NARAYAN HEBBAR
AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: CHIEF EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR,
NAGARIKA KANNADA AND
MANJANNA WEEKLY NEWS PAPER
E
R/O: HONNAVAR, POST: HONNAVAR
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA
Date: 2024.01.24
15:44:07 +0530 PIN CODE: 581 334
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DINAKAR KAMAT
S/O ANANT KAMAT
AGE:77 YEARS
OCC: PLEADER
R/O.JOGAMATH ROAD
MASTIKATTA
POST: HONNAVAR
TQ: HONNAVAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
PIN CODE: 581 334
-2-
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
2. GURUDATTA KULKARNI
S/O.UMESH KULKARNI
AGE: 47 YEARS
OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR
R/O.RAMATEERTH ROAD
POST: HONNAVAR
TQ: HONNAVAR
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
PIN CODE: 581 334
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMACHANDRA V.BHAT, FOR
SRI.F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.S.N.BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
***
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
06.10.2010 PASSED IN RA NO.9/2005 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, HONNAVAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2004 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN
O.S.NO.45/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.)
HONNAVAR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED THE DAMAGES.
IN RSA No.5033/2011
BETWEEN:
SHRI. GURUDATT UMESH KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER & CONTRACTOR
R/O.RAMATHIRTHA ROAD
HONNAVAR-581 334
TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: KARWAR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.N.BANAKAR AND
SRI.M.B.GONDI AND
SRI.LINGESH V.KATTEMANI AND
SRI.R.A.SHIRGAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
AND:
1. DINAKAR ANANTH KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST & PLEADER
R/O.JOGAMATH ROAD, MASTI KATTA,
HONNAVAR-581 334
TQ: HONNAVAR
DIST: KARWAR
2. KRISHNAMURTHY NARAYAN HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: CHIEF EDITOR & PROPRIETOR
NAGARIKA KANNADA WEEKLY
AT & POST HONNAVAR-581 334
TQ: HONNAVAR
DIST: KARWAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATESH M KHARVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.N.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
***
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
06.10.2010 PASSED IN RA NO.09/2005 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, HONNAVAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2004 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.45/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.)
HONNAVAR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED THE DAMAGES.
THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
JUDGMENT
Appellant/defendant No.1 filed RSA No.6121/2010
and appellant/defendant No.2 filed RSA No.5033/2011
feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of First
Appellate Court on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Honavar
in R.A.No.9/2005 dated 6.10.2010 preferred respective
appeal.
2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their
ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the
plaintiff can be stated in nutshell to the effect that plaintiff
is a senior practicing Advocate of Honavar and earned
good name and respect in the public. The plaintiff is also
a social worker and elected President to the various
institutions and the family of the plaintiff is a respectable
and noble family. Defendant No.1 is Chief Editor, Publisher
and Printer of weekly paper "Nagarika" which is being
printed, edited and published by him in Honavar. The said
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
weekly paper has got vide publication in Honavar and
outside in the District and there are good number of
subscribers of the said weekly paper. Defendant No.2 is
doing contract business of constructing buildings and he is
not in good terms with plaintiff. Plaintiff has represented
number of his clients against defendant No.2 in the
dispute between flat owners and defendant No.2 who has
constructed apartments. There was election of Honavar
Urban Co-operative Bank, Honavar for electing Directors of
the Bank on 30.5.1999. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 along
with others has contested the said election. At the time of
scrutiny of nomination papers, one of the candidate raised
objection against defendant No.2 on the ground that his
brother is a permanent employee of the Bank and there
was some discussion about it. The plaintiff has participated
in the said discussion being one of the candidate.
Defendant No.2 misunderstood that plaintiff was
supporting the objectors and interested in disqualification
of candidature of defendant No.2. As a result, defendant
No.2 developed ill-feeling and hatred towards plaintiff.
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
Plaintiff and defendant No.2 belonged to opposite groups
in the election.
4. When such being the case, there was an article
published in "Nagarika" weekly dated 14.6.1999 against
the plaintiff with sub-heading of defendant No.2 allegation
on the front and last page of "Nagarika" weekly.
Defendant No.1 without ascertaining the truthfulness of
allegation of defendant No.2 has published the same and
defendant No.2 made such allegation against plaintiff
without being any basis. On account of such publication,
the reputation and image of plaintiff in the society was
degraded and people started enquiring about the said
article. The plaintiff was defamed in the eyes of general
public due to false allegations made in the article dated
14.6.1999 in "Nagarika" weekly. Defendant No.1 only on
the basis of written allegations communicated to
defendant No.1, he should not have published the article
without verifying truthfulness of the same. The plaintiff
has sent notice dated 23.7.1999 demanding damages of
Rs.50,000/- from the defendants. The defendants though
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
served with notice has not replied the same. Therefore,
the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit for the
relief claimed therein.
5. In response to the suit summons, defendants
No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed
separate written statement.
6. Defendant No.1 has contended that it is duty of
defendant No.1 to write the articles in public interest and
also publishing the articles in newspapers as per the
information received by him. The same was never
intended to tarnish the image of the plaintiff in the society.
Defendant No.1 has published the article against the
plaintiff as per the report given by defendant No.2 and he
has no ill-will against the plaintiff. It is only a reply to the
article published regarding plaintiff in his newspaper. The
statement given by defendant No.2 does not contain any
defamatory statement. If the reputation of plaintiff is
injured, it is only defendant No.2 who is answerable.
Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit against him.
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
7. Defendant No.2 filed written statement
contending that defendant No.2 is not working in the office
of defendant No.1 in any capacity and he is not
responsible for the article published by defendant No.1 in
his newspaper. Defendant No.2 is serving as a young
leader in public life in Honavar. Defendant No.2 being a
subscriber of "Nagarika" weekly has read the article
published on 25.9.1999 about the plaintiff. Defendant
No.2 after reading the said article in the newspaper, has
got published the real facts against the plaintiff. The
article published in the "Nagarika" weekly newspaper
belongs to the public life of the plaintiff and it never
intended to destroy the personal reputation of the plaintiff.
Therefore, on these grounds prayed for dismissal of the
suit.
8. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings of both
parties has framed necessary issues. Plaintiff to prove his
case relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and the
documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.6. The defendants relied
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
on the evidence of DWs.1 to 5 and documents Exhibits D.1
to D.36. The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both
sides and after appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence has partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and
directed each of the defendants to pay compensation of
Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff.
9. Defendant No.2 challenged the said judgment and
decree of the Trial Court before the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.9/2005. The First Appellate Court after re-
appreciation of evidence has dismissed the appeal filed by
defendant No.2 and allowed the cross appeal filed by
respondent No.1/plaintiff and modified the damages of
Rs.50,000/-. Further, directed both the defendants jointly
and severally to pay the amount.
10. The appellant/defendant No.1 in RSA
No.6121/2010 and appellant/defendant No.2 in RSA
No.5033/2011 challenged the judgment and decree of the
First Appellate Court contending that the First Appellate
Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record.
- 10 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
The article published in the weekly newspaper "Nagarika"
does not contain any defamatory statement against the
plaintiff. The article was published only with an intention
to reveal the true facts against the plaintiff and never
intended to harm the reputation of the plaintiff in the
Society. The courts below have committed serious error in
holding that the article published in "Nagarika" weekly
newspaper was published without ascertaining the
truthfulness of the same and amounts to injure the
reputation of the plaintiff in the Society. The grant of
damages of Rs.50,000/- by defendants is without there
being any basis or necessary evidence. The approach and
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and the
findings recorded by both the courts below are against the
evidence on record and the same cannot be legally
sustained. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal and
to set aside the judgment of both the courts below.
Consequently, to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
- 11 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
11. In response to the notice of both appeals, the
respondents appeared through counsel. The Trial Court
records have been secured.
12. This Court by order dated 7.3.2014 admitted
both the appeals to consider the following substantial
questions of law :
1) Whether both the Courts have committed a
serious error in not looking to the facts that the
comments made by the defendants was fair and
bonafide and criticism made in the best interest of
the public at large and therefore, it does not
amount to defamation?
2) Whether the first appellate Court has committed a
serious error in enhancing the damages to
Rs.50,000/- without there being any material
evidence on record?
3) Whether the judgment and decree of both the
Courts and preserve and illegal for non-
consideration of material evidence placed on
record?"
13. Heard the arguments of both sides in both the
appeals.
- 12 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
14. On careful perusal of oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, it would go to show that
plaintiff is a practicing Senior Advocate in Honavar and
also a social worker. The plaintiff is an elected member of
various institutions and associated with social activities.
Defendant No.1 is the Chief Editor, publisher and printer of
weekly newspaper "Nagarika" and defendant No.2 is doing
contract business of constructing buildings in Honavar.
Plaintiff and defendant No.2 have contested the election of
Honavar Urban Co operative Bank Ltd. on 30.5.1999. One
of the candidate has objected the candidature of
defendant No.2, since his brother is working in the said
Bank and there was discussion about it. Plaintiff has
participated in the said discussion as one of the candidate.
Plaintiff has represented his client in the litigation against
defendant No.2. On account of the above referred facts,
defendant No.2 was not in good terms with plaintiff.
15. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is
necessary to decide I.A.I/2023 filed by
appellant/defendant No.1 under Order XLI Rule 27 read
- 13 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
with Section 151 of CPC. Defendant No.1 under I.A.1/2023
seeks to produce the certified copy of judgment of this
court in Crl.A.No.544/2006 dated 21.09.2011.
Appellant/defendant No.1 was accused No.1 in
C.C.No.5/2000 on the file of Principal JMFC, Honavar, U.K.
and he was convicted for the offence under Section 500
and 501 of IPC along with accused No.2. The defendant
No.1/accused No.1 challenged the said judgment of
conviction before the First Appellate Court on the file of
Sessions Judge, FTC-I Karwar in Crl.A.No.105/2004. The
First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of evidence on
record has acquitted defendant No.1/accused No.1. The
complainant has assailed the judgment of acquittal passed
by the First Appellate Court before this Court in
Crl.A.544/2006. The said appeal came to be dismissed by
confirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court. It
means that defendant No.1/accused No.1 is acquitted for
the offences alleged against him for the offence Punishable
under Section 500 and 501 of IPC. The question is as to
whether judgment of Criminal Court is binding on civil
- 14 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
Court in an action for damages against the defendants
who stood acquitted in the Criminal Court.
16. In this context of the matter, it is useful to refer
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sh.Vishnu
Dutt Sharma v. Smt. Daya Sapra reported in (2009)
13 SCC 729 wherein it has been observed and held in
paragraphs (26) and (27) as under :
"26. Any finding in a criminal proceedings
by no stretch of imagination would be binding in
a civil proceedings.
In M.S Sheriff and Another v. State of
Madras and Others (AIR 1954 SC 397), a
Constitution Bench of this Court was ceased
with a question whether a civil suit or criminal
case should be stayed in the event both are
pending. It was opined that criminal matter
should be given precedence.
In regard to the conflict of decisions, it
was held that the law envisages such an
eventuality when it expressly refrains from
making the decision of one court binding on the
other, or even relevant, except for certain
limited purposes, such as sentence or damages.
- 15 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
It was held that the only relevant consideration
was the likelihood of embarrassment.
(27) If primacy is given to a criminal
proceeding, indisputably, the civil suit must be
determined on its own keeping in view the
evidence which has been brought on record
before it and not in terms of the evidence
brought in the criminal proceedings."
In another latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court
in Rajaram s/o.Sriramulu Naidu (since deceased)
through LRs v. Maruthachalam (since deceased)
through LRs reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 46
wherein it has been observed and held in paragraph (30)
as under :
"30. Though it was sought to be argued
before the High Court that in view of the
judgment in the criminal proceedings, the suit
(s) was also liable to be dismissed, the High
Court rightly observed that the adjudication in
civil matters is based on preponderance of
probabilities whereas adjudication in criminal
case is based on principle that the accused is
presumed to be innocent and the guilt of the
- 16 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
accused should be proved to the guilt and the
proof should be beyond all reasonable doubt."
In view of the principles enunciated in both the
aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is
evident that judgment of criminal court is not binding on
the civil court, since standard of proof in criminal
proceeding differs with that in civil proceedings.
Adjudication in civil matters is based on preponderance of
probabilities, whereas adjudication in criminal case is
based on the principle that the accused is presumed to be
innocent and the guilt of the accused should be proved to
the hilt and the proof should be beyond all reasonable
doubt.
17. Therefore, even if the production of I.A.1/2023
is allowed and the judgment passed by this Court in
Crl.A.544/2006 is allowed to be produced, then also it will
not serve any purpose in view of the principles enunciated
in the aforementioned judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court. The civil action in a claim for damages will be to be
independently appreciated based on the evidence on
- 17 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
record. Hence, for the aforesaid recorded reasons,
I.A.1/2023 seeking production of document as additional
evidence is hereby rejected.
18. The genesis of cause to file the present suit is
the article published in "Nagarika" weekly dated 14.6.1999
which was printed, edited and published by defendant
No.1. Defendant No.1 has published the result of Honavar
Urban Co operative Bank Ltd. on 7.6.1999 Ex.D.1.
Defendant No.2 has addressed written communication to
defendant No.1 Ex.D2 and made several allegations
against plaintiff. It is on the basis of such written
communication of defendant No.2, defendant No.1 has
published the selected written communication in the
newspaper Ex.P.4 appearing on the first and last pages of
the said weekly newspaper under the title "¤ÃªÀÅ w½zÀAw®è
PÁªÀÄvÀgÀÄ" and made several allegation of corruption against
plaintiff. The plaintiff has contended that those allegations
are made by both defendants No.1 and 2 only with an
intention to degrade the plaintiff in public view and with an
- 18 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
intention to harm his reputation in the society. Defendant
No.1 without verifying the truthfulness of written
communication made by defendant No.2 has published the
same in the newspaper Ex.P.4.
19. The clients of plaintiff and the public started
enquiring with the plaintiff about the news article
appearing in Ex.P.4 and on account of it, he was
humiliated in the public view. The Trial Court has
extracted the allegations in the judgment at paragraph
(20) while dealing with issue No.4.
20. Defendants No.1 and 2 do not deny the
publication of article against plaintiff in Ex.P.4. Defendant
No.1 has contended that it is only a reply of defendant
No.2 on the article published in the newspaper and the
same was not intended to tarnish the image or reputation
of plaintiff in the society. The intention to publish the
written communication of defendant No.2 was in the form
of reply to the article published in the weekly newspaper
"Nagarika" which only amounts to views expressed by
- 19 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 had no any malice in
publishing the article against the plaintiff. Whereas,
defendant No.2 has contended that the article published in
the newspaper Ex.P.4 based on his written communication
Ex.D.2 was only intended to bring the true facts of the
plaintiff to the public and never intended to tarnish the
reputation of plaintiff in the eyes of society.
21. The defendant No.2 does not deny having made
written communication Ex.D.2 addressed to defendant
No.1 and made sarcastic allegation against the plaintiff
indulged in corruption, mismanagement in the Institution
in which plaintiff is involved and also while practicing as an
Advocate. Out of the said allegations contained in Ex.D.2,
selected allegations are published in the weekly newspaper
of "Nagarika" of defendant No.1. The defendants by
evidence on record have failed to demonstrate the
minimum care was taken for asserting the truthfulness of
the allegations made in Ex.D.2 and just blindly proceeded
to publish those allegations in the weekly newspaper
"Nagarika" of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 cannot
- 20 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
simply wash away his hands stating that it is the reply
given by defendant No.2 to the article published in the
weekly newspaper "Nagarika". The defendant No.1 before
publishing the allegations against plaintiff out of the
written communication of defendant No.1 Ex.D.2 would
have called upon defendant No.2 to produce some basic
documents to substantiate the allegations made against
the plaintiff.
22. The honour and dignity of everyone in the eye
of society has to be maintained. The freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed under Constitution cannot be
used as a weapon to tarnish the image of anybody in the
eye of society. It was equally the duty of defendant No.1
to verify the truthfulness of allegations sought to be
published by defendant No.2 by way of written
communication Ex.D.2, further would have called upon
defendant No.2 to produce basic documents to
substantiate the said allegations. The defendant No.1 has
failed to exhibit requisite care and prudence before
publishing the written communication of defendant No.2
- 21 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
vide Ex.D.2. The defendant No.2 has made allegations
against plaintiff by written communication Ex.D.2 without
there being requisite proof. The defendant No.2 seeks to
justify the allegations made in written communication
Ex.D.2. During trial also defendant No.2 has not produced
any concrete evidence to substantiate the allegations
made in the written communication Ex.D.2. Thus, both the
defendants have failed to demonstrate by evidence on
record that publication of article in the weekly news paper
"Nagarika" was in the public interest.
23. The defendants No.1 and 2 are also responsible
persons in the locality and have status in the society of
their own. The reputation of a person in the eye of the
society cannot be stigmatized by making false allegations
against him without verifying the truthfulness of the same.
The defendants by evidence on record have failed to
demonstrate that the article published against the plaintiff
was only intended in the best interest of the public to
know the conduct of the plaintiff in the society. The
- 22 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
defendants have not only published false allegations
against the plaintiff without verifying the truthfulness of
the same, but seeks to justify the publication as they
thought fit in their own wisdom. The defendants No.1 and
2 also having status in the society should have exercised
due care and diligence and collected requisite document at
least prima facie to justify the allegations made against
the plaintiff in the written communication of defendant
No.2 Ex.D.2 which was published in the weekly newspaper
"Nagarika" of defendant No.1. On facts, both the courts
below have concurrently held that the article published in
the weekly newspaper "Nagarika" of defendant No.1 on
the written communication of defendant No.2 is per se
defamatory and the reputation of the plaintiff in the
society is adversely affected due to false publication made
in the newspaper "Nagarika" Ex.P.4.
24. The courts below having appreciated the
evidence on record held that the allegations made in the
article Ex.P.4 was published without verification of the
truthfulness of the said allegations and the plaintiff has
- 23 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
proved that the allegations were intended to tarnish the
reputation of the plaintiff in the eye of society. Therefore,
the plaintiff is entitled for damages and the defendants
No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff.
25. The Trial Court has granted damages of
Rs.5,000/- each payable by defendants No.1 and 2 to the
plaintiff. The First Appellate Court having concurred with
the finding of the Trial Court has dismissed the appeal of
defendant No.2 and allowed the cross objection of the
plaintiff and modified the decree of the Trial Court holding
that plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.50,000/- and
both defendants No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally to
pay the amount. The First Appellate Court has granted the
damages as sought by the plaintiff in the suit. The award
of quantum of damages has to be assessed based on the
evidence on record, nature of allegations made against the
plaintiff, the status of plaintiff in the society and other
attending circumstances. The First Appellate Court has
not assigned any valid reason to award the quantum of
damages as claimed by the plaintiff. Looking to the facts
- 24 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
and circumstances of the case, if defendants No.1 and 2
each are directed to pay damages to the plaintiff
amounting to Rs.15,000/- will meet the ends of justice.
Consequently, the substantial question of law accordingly
answered in the negative. Consequently, proceed to pass
the following :
ORDER
Appeal filed by appellant/defendant No.1 in RSA
No.6121/2010 and appeal filed by appellant/defendant
No.2 in RSA No.5033/2011 are hereby partly allowed.
The judgment and decree of First Appellate Court on
the file of Senior Civil Judge, Honavar in R.A.No.9/2005
dated 6.10.2010 and the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court in O.S.No.45/2000 dated 26.10.2004 are hereby
ordered to be modified as under :
The plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.15,000/-
each payable by defendants No.1 and 2 within a period of
two months from the date of this judgment. If the
defendants No.1 and 2 fail to pay the said amount, they
- 25 -
RSA No.6121 OF 2010
C/W RSA No.5033 OF 2011
are liable to pay interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this
judgment till realization of the entire amount.
Registry is directed to transmit the copy of this
judgment along with the records to the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rs
