Case: Raghu Nath Singh Vs. Krishna Chandra Sharma

Ex. R-12 remained un-contradicted by the appellant. 15. Besides these pamphlets, comments also appeared in the local newspapers, such as the issues of June 14 and 16, 1967, of Dainik Jagran and in the issue of June 15, 1967, Manas Utthan. The Dainik Jagran of June 14, 1967, reported the speech of minister Sharma in support of the levy and the welcome speech delivered in that meeting by the appellant in which he was reported to have extended his support of the levy. On June 16, 1967, the appellant presided over a meeting at Bar which was addressed by the same minister. Manas Utthan, in its issue of June 15, 1967, came out with an editorial recalling the earlier protests of the appellant against the levy, placing in juxtaposition his demand for a higher procurement price for wheat at a meeting of the Collectors. The innuendo was that the appellant as a landholder was interested in obtaining at high a price for the wheat grown by him as was possible. It also hinted that the appellant had abandoned his opposition to the levy on being pulled up by his party ministers in the Government."The X-ray of his political wisdom" was how the appellants attitude towards the levy dubbed by the editorial. 16. The respondents case was that besides seeing these written comments he had gone round the constituency where he had heard a number of persons commenting about the change in the appellants attitude towards the levy and ascribing that change to his having secured exemption from the levy and taqavi for himself, his relations and those serving him. He examined two of them, namely, R. Ws. 24 and 32, but curiously no questions were asked to them as to whether they had conveyed any information to him about the appellant having secured the said exemption and the taqavi loan for himself. Mr. Tripathi, therefore, was right in his comment that the respondent had failed to establish this part of his case. Nevertheless, considering the controversy which was going on in regard to the appellants attitude towards the levy, it would be surprising if the respondent had not heard in the constituency his own partymen attributing for the shift in the appellants attitude towards the levy the same reasons which the authors of the pamphlet Ex. R-12 had set out. 17. According to the respondent, in view of this kind of talk going on in the constituency, he visited the Tehsil office to make inquires Although he could not find there any application for taqavi loan by the appellant himself, he could ascertain that it was due to the appellants intervention that exemptions from levy and taqavi loans were granted by that office. 18. There could be no dispute that the appellants brother, Gajraj Singh, had applied for and received taqavi loan. Altogether a sum of Rs. 9, 000/- had been distributed as taqavi amongst the cultivators of Madanpur. Though the appellant had not personally obtained any such loan, the inquiry by the respondent at the tehsil office had disclosed that it was due to his intervention that these loans had been granted. There must have been considerable talk about the appellant being responsible for these loans as well as exemptions from the levy amongst the people of Madanpur and the neighbouring areas. 19. The evidence shows that the appellant and his brother, Gajraj Singh, were separate and were no longer members of a joint Hindu family. Though they were separate in food, residence and estate, there was no division of the lands held by them by metes and bounds. According to the evidence of the appellant, the lands held by him were comprised of 4 khatas. Gajraj had deposed that 3 of these 4 khatas were in the joint names of the appellant. Gajraj and certain other relations, and the 4th khata was in the joint names of the appellant and Gajrajs son. A taqavi loan, being a distress loan for the betterment of the land, though granted in the name of Gajraj Singh, would appear to benefit, at lest indirectly, the appellant also, as Gajraj Singh could not have utilised such a loan for any particular portion of the land for his exclusive benefit as the land had not yet been divided by metes and bounds. In these circumstances, even if a person had not the proof that the appellant had obtained the taqavi loan for himself, he was likely to draw the inference that the loan in the name of the brother and other family members was in fact for the benefit of the appellant also and therefore such a loan was as good as a loan to the appellant and for his benefit. 20. The question is not one of the truth of the statement that the appellant was the recipient of a large amount by way of taqavi loan, but of the absence of belief on the part of the respondent that the statement was true. In the background of the pamphleteering that had gone on, the controversy and the loan obtained by the appellants brother and other relations, and in particular the allegations contained in Ex. R-12 which remained uncontradicted all throughout, and lastly, the fact that it was on account of the appellants intervention that exemption from the levy and taqavi loans had become possible, it is impossible to rule out altogether a belief on the part of the respondent that the statement that the appellant had obtained monetary advantage was true. In any case, if the High Court on an appraisal of evidence before it arrived at such a conclusion, an interference at our hands with such a conclusion would require some compelling reasons. We have none such compelling reasons to warrant such an interference. 21. That being the position, we have to hold that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent did not believe the said statement to be true as required by Section 123 (4) of the Act. 22.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. The levy of foodgrains was imposed by the U.P. Rabi Foodgrains Levy (On Producers) Order issued on April 8, 1957. The evidence showed that several cultivators at first refused to honour the levy, but they paid it up subsequently on action having been taken against them by the authorities. In some cases even arrests were effected. The appellant,, did not deposit any goodgrains as there was an exemption in respect of his lands. Therefore, the statement that he did not give a single foodgrain would not be incorrect. There was, however, no evidence to establish that it was at his instance or persuasion that several cultivators paid up their share of the levy. That part of the statement that he made the cultivators pay up their contribution was, therefore, not trueOn this question, although counsel conceded that the statement in the matter of levy did not relate to the personal character or conduct of the appellant, the two statements were so inextricably connected with each other that the evidence with regard to the one inevitably becomes relevant on the other. There is ample evidence on record, so clear that it would be somewhat superfluous to enter into its details, showing that the appellant had at first opposed the levy through meetings and even demonstrations, but that later on his attitude softened and he actually gave his support to it at meetings addressed by ministers where he either presided or was present or was presentMr. Tripathi, therefore, was right in his comment that the respondent had failed to establish this part of his case. Nevertheless, considering the controversy which was going on in regard to the appellants attitude towards the levy, it would be surprising if the respondent had not heard in the constituency his own partymen attributing for the shift in the appellants attitude towards the levy the same reasons which the authors of the pamphlet Ex.2 had set out19. The evidence shows that the appellant and his brother, Gajraj Singh, were separate and were no longer members of a joint Hindu family. Though they were separate in food, residence and estate, there was no division of the lands held by them by metes and bounds20. The question is not one of the truth of the statement that the appellant was the recipient of a large amount by way of taqavi loan, but of the absence of belief on the part of the respondent that the statement was true. In the background of the pamphleteering that had gone on, the controversy and the loan obtained by the appellants brother and other relations, and in particular the allegations contained in Ex.2 which remained uncontradicted all throughout, and lastly, the fact that it was on account of the appellants intervention that exemption from the levy and taqavi loans had become possible, it is impossible to rule out altogether a belief on the part of the respondent that the statement that the appellant had obtained monetary advantage was true. In any case, if the High Court on an appraisal of evidence before it arrived at such a conclusion, an interference at our hands with such a conclusion would require some compelling reasons. We have none such compelling reasons to warrant such an interference21. That being the position, we have to hold that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent did not believe the said statement to be true as required by Section 123 (4) of the Act.