IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 1101 of 2005() ---------------------- AS.95/2001 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.779/1998 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/DEFENDANT. -------------------------------------- CHERUVALATH PURAYIL RARICHAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, P.O.NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF. ------------------------ VALOOR RAGHAVAN NAIR, S/O.CHINNAN NAIR, CHALIL VEEDU, NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.RAVI FOR R1 SRI.P.S.MURALI FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO.3138 OF 2005 AND I.A.NO.2314 OF 2007 IN C.R.P. NO. 1101 OF 2005 DISMISSED 30.5.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1101 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 O R D E R The defendant in O.S. No.779 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court I, Kozhikode is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The trial court passed the decree directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- with interest to the plaintiff as damages. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court were confirmed by the lower appellate court in A.S. No.95 of 2001. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the court below, the defendant preferred this appeal. The parties are referred to as the plaintiff and defendant as in the suit. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree of damages for the loss of reputation suffered by him due to the slander made by the defendant against him. The allegation is that on 27.9.1998, the defendant shouted at the plaintiff saying that he had stolen money from C.R.P. NO.1101/2005 2 the defendant's shop and called him a thief. It is further alleged that within a few minutes of the incident, the money alleged to have been stolen by the plaintiff was recovered from the drawer of the table in the shop of the defendant. Instantly it was revealed that the plaintiff had not stolen the money as alleged by the defendant. The trial court examined the plaintiff and two other witnesses as PWs.1 to 3. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant was examined as DW.1. The trial court noticed the fact that the witnesses recollected the specific words spoken by the defendant and came to the conclusion that the evidence on record was quite substantive and reliable to find that the incident as alleged by the plaintiff had happened and that the defendant had uttered defamatory statements against the plaintiff in the presence of others. 3. It is true that the words uttered by the defendant is per se defamatory. The question is whether by abusing the plaintiff by uttering the word "thief" in the presence of others would damage or destroy his reputation and whether such a slander would create doubt about his character among the persons in whose presence the said word was uttered. It is proved that the defendant uttered the per se defamatory statement. At the same time, it has come out in evidence that at the very same spot C.R.P. NO.1101/2005 3 within a few minutes of the incident, the money was recovered from the drawer of the table of the defendant in the presence of the persons who had assembled at the place when the defendant had made the defamatory statement. Hence, the statement made by the defendant was proved to be wrong then and there. The position would have been different if at least one among them had left the place with the impression that the plaintiff was a thief. I have ascertained from the counsel on both sides that there was no evidence to show that recovery of money was made subsequent to any of the persons leaving the place. So long as there is no evidence to prove that a third person carries the impression that the plaintiff is a thief who committed theft of Rs.900/- from the shop of the defendant on 27.9.1998, the plaintiff cannot claim damages. The suit was filed by the plaintiff stating that his reputation was at stake due to the incident. The money alleged to have been stolen having been recovered within a few minutes of the incident from the shop itself and the plaintiff having been found not guilty, the further question is whether the word "thief"uttered by the defendant alone will give rise to a cause of action for filing the suit for damages. 4. The finding of the courts below on the basis of evidence that such an incident had occurred is a finding rightly made. At the same time, C.R.P. NO.1101/2005 4 I am of the view that the finding that the defendant is liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the plaintiff towards loss of reputation cannot stand. So long as the reputation of the plaintiff is not at stake and the plaintiff regained his reputation within minutes of the incident in the presence of the very same persons who witnessed the incident, I am of the view that no damage is caused to the plaintiff as a result of the incident. There is no doubt that the finding of the courts below that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the case against the defendant is correct. The lower appellate court also stated the very same reasonings while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. I have come across the oral evidence of PW. 1 who had stated that all the persons assembled at the place of incident and who had witnessed the incident were convinced that the plaintiff is not a thief. 5. In the circumstances, the finding entered by the courts below that for the loss of reputation, the defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff is a finding not laid down correctly. In my view, the plaintiff has failed to prove a case of slander which tends to lower his reputation in the estimation of people who have heard him being called a thief. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No.779 of 1998 as C.R.P. NO.1101/2005 5 confirmed by the lower appellate court in A.S. No.95 of 2001 is set aside and the suit is dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The revision petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the trial court. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.1101/2005 6 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P. NO. 1101/2005 O R D E R 30th MAY, 2008 C.R.P. NO.1101/2005 7