The High Court · 2025

Order

01.12.2025 BETWEEN: Snrt (i.Satl,akumar (Drcd) & 3 others AND Sri G.Srinivas & 2 othcrs JUDGMENT: Appella.nts Respondents

Heard Sri Kowturu Pauan Kuma4 Learned counsel for the appellants and Sn P.Sosidhar Reddg, lezLrned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 96, read rvith order XLI Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C against the ludgment passcd in OS No.31 of 20 lO on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, Cit,v Civil Court, Secunderabad,

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/ plarntiffs herein have filed a suit against the defendants Nos. I to 3 seeking damages of Rs. 10,01,0O0/- for causing loss and reputation and for defamation. 2 IVA,IR,J CCCA Na.E3 o12020 \

4. The plainttlf Nos. 1 and 2 are wife ald I usband and the defendarts Nos.1 ard are natural brothers of ' :e plaintiff No.I , Defendant No.3 is thc husband of junior matieral r rnt of thc plair.rtifi No.1. The plair.rril.f N..1 has filed oS No.3 of 2oo.r ,r-r the 'iLe of XIII Additional Senior ci'il Judge, Secunderabad, seel r rg partition of thc properties, rncluding a joint famill, property a: I a sell acquired property of their deceased father, G. Mallesham against defendar.rt No- 1 and 2 and ri-rree others i.e., tu,o sisters and he r tnother.;itnamma.

5. The dcfendanr Nos.I and 2 filed a u'ritten tatemcnt, allegtng that the said suit rvzrs fr-audulentl1,' filed with sole ntentiorr to knock awal thc propcntes. During the proceedings, rl tr clefen,lzlrt No.1 reportedll. conspired u'ith the third defendant t: issue clcfamator_1, statements against rhe plaintiffs. The first plain_ i't' alteged that the defendant No.1 threatened her u,ith assassinatio - to deter her frorn pursuing the *ise. sr-rbsequently extending the 1lr (rat to the plaintiff No.2 to r,vithdr:rrv thc c.laim. The defendants als,r nade accusations against the plaintilfs regarding their character, s r:ggesting that the plaintilf No. I maintained an illegitimate relationsl i: with :he second plaintilf belore t heir marriage.

6. In the u,ritten statement, the defendant avert :C that the plaintifl No.1 left her paternal home while she was pr€ 3nant and implied uncertaint]' about hel marital status. This na4r.4.;e extended during, 3 NNR,J CCCA No.E3 of 2020 cross examination, where the defendant No. I made clarms about the plaintiffs' personal Iives, including allegations ol the plaintiff No.1 having been pregnant multiple times u'ith the plaintiff No.2 prior to marriage. De fe r-rd zr.nt No.I cross-examinatton escalated to baseless suggestions that the 2"a plaintilf had inappropriate relationships plantiff No. 1 mother

7. The plaintiffs claimed that the delamatory statements severely damaged their reputations, leading to public humiliation ir-r front of ottrer Iitigants in the court, r't here they laced dtsparaging looks and embarrassrncnt due to tl-re overzealous aliegations made bv the defendalts. The plarntiffs sought damages amounting to Rs.10,01,000 for the alleged harm that the defamatory statements and actions caused, arguing that the impact ol the defamation rvas irreparable and could not be quantilied financially

8. The defendants, in turn, filed a common r.r,ritten statement refuting tl.re claims of delamation and disputing the alleged threats They argued that the plaintiff No.1 has no locus standi the standing to bring the partition suit since the properties in question were inherited and rightfully willed to them by their father. They contended that the will deed dated 06.03.1992 executed by their late father in their favour, hence the question of partition does not arise. They maintai\red that the plaintiffs instigated their sisters to participate in \ 4 A/tvR J CCCA No.83 ol 2020 the suit to appllr pressure on the defendants rl s;pite lacking any legitimate clerim or interest in the properties as per r re above said n,ill

9. Tl-re dcfc.dants furrher accused thc plarr r r Ts of i:rbricatr.g allegations ro Iratrss them, maintaining that an\ stzrtemcnts made were rooted in the context ol lai.l,ful cross-exanl rirtion during legal proceedings an c-l rlid not constitute delamation. I t ,\.as asserted that the trial Judgc pcrm itted thc cross-examinatio, rvhir:h implies rhe questions raisecl r.r'cre legitimate based on the plair it'f's, pleadings.

10. The dcfendarts countercd rhe plaintiffs' cra r .s by stating that the plaintilf No. I had initialll'rurl aq,a),with the pii i.,tiff No 2, causing distress to tl-reir lather, rvhich purportedly contribrr e.d to his decline rn health a,d subsequent dearh. The-y claimed thr piaintiffs did not submit a marriage certificate to substantiate tl-r,: r marriage claims, indicating a lack of truthful representation of their -,:lationship status.

11. The deferrdants concluded by emphasizi rg that the firsr plaintiff's admission to cohabiting with the se<:, nd plaintiff before marriage justified their line of questioning. The1, naintaired that nc, real defamaton, intent was involved, as their aim r.:rs merelv to assen_ their rights regarding the properties, in accordar i:e with the will o. their father. , I 5 NNR.J CCCA No.83 of 2O2O

12. Additionally, it was noted that the third defendant, being related to the second plarntiff, only provided truthful testimony during the proceedings, suggesting that an] pcrceived insults during the court session \\/ere a rcsult ol the plaintills' own actions rather Lhan rntentional defamation. The defcndalts argued the plaintiffs \\'ere attemp[ing to construct lictitious damage claims and denied any responsibilitl' to compensate for these clalms and pral'ed the trial Court to dismiss the suit

13. Durir-rg the trial, the Lstplatntif[ examined herself as P.W-i ancl got exhibited A 1 Lo A-7. 'l'he 2'a plaintiff also examined himsell as P.W 2. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, the

1.' defendant examined himself as D.W- i. No documents \\'ere exhibited 14 Basing on tl're pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned trial Court framed the following issues r"'hich read as under: " 1 . Wlether the defendants I lo 3 defamed the plaintiffs and caused loss o/ reputation to them? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are damages of Rs.1O,O1,000/ as prayed for? 3. To what reliej?" entitled to claim 6 NNR J CCCA No.83 of 2020

15. After hearing both the partie s and their nr i I contentions and perusil-rg thc oral arrd documentary evidences p:ced by both the parties. the learned trial Court dismissed the ; lit :rnd irold that plaintilis are not er-rtirled for the damages sir-rcc t1 r plerintifis failed to prove that the allegations macle bv the defendants r. OS No.3 of 2002 caused damagc to their reputation in the ptritl :

16. Being unsatisfied by the dismissal order bv tre rrial Court, rhe present appeal is liled b1, the petitioners/ appella - ,r; on the follou,ing arnong the othcr gror-rnc1s that the learned Judgt r'. iLliout giving ern,1 categorical findings on the evidence of PW. 1 & 2, t, v.l and ple ading ol the appellan-rts/ plair-rt rffs has comc to arr conclu j ()n on assumption ald presumption onl,\.. Thc learned Judge ,r ir ltout giving an) categorical find ings r'rn the issues and pleadingls, ol the parties anc evidence which is on record had dismiss the sLLi t against the settled principles of larv.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants further :onrended that thr: learned Judge failecl to consider the averments and allegation anrl contents mentioned in the Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 u,hic - clearly establishes that the respondents/ defendant Nos. 1 & 2 havt, tnade a derogaton, and defamatorv statements rvhich causing damag. r.o the reputation of the appellants/ plaintiffs, and on that ground alon I the learned Jucige ought to have decreed the suit and averred.,-th.rt .carned Judge hav,: (' .7 7 NN R,J CCCA No.E3 o12020 failed to consider that the non-exarnination of the mother of appellants is not a fatal to the case, since the delendant Nos. 1 & 2 have made a derogatory and defamaton statement before the Court of law against the appellants / plaintifls and mother of the appellant No 1 and praved this Court to allou' the appeal b,v setting aside the judgment and decree passed in OS No.3 L ol 2010, dated 06.1O.2017 on the file of the learned XII Addl.Chief Judge, Citl' Civil Court, Secunderabad by decreeing the present suit ir-r favour ol appellants against respondents'

18. Learned counsel for tirc delendants contended that delendants have quantilied and conscioush' pleaded in the affidavit and also retreated about the samc contending that they are stickrng to the statement made to the n ritten s[atement and the admission made during the course ol cross-eraminauon which is necessary to knori' the truth of the case and further contended that any statement made during the course of trial ir-r the Court comes under the absolu te privilege, unless it can be shorvn that the statement was made without any reference to the proceedings before the Court and had no connection with them.

19. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit and needs no interference' 8 NAi R, J CCCA No.83 o12020

20. Having heard the counsel for the appellant:; ulaintiffs and the learned counsel lor the rcsponder-rts/ defendar r s , considering the conte ntions and rirral contentions of both th c rar.ties, and the pieadings therein, no'"i. thc point ',vhich arose be f(,rt rhis Court is , Whether t.he statement mode bg the de.-fertclo r i .No.s. I to 3 before' the Court dunnq the course of tricLi t n'tou rtts to defamat [on as clained bg the, appellctl?rs olr,) . Whether the leamed tial Court cornmitte-d r.t u error ir rejecting the cloirn of th" ptointifJ) iii) Whether the oppeLlarts/ plaintiffs ere et iil' I for anttl damages as cLainrcd for ? Point Nos.1 to 3 2l . Admittedly, there is no dispute rvith regarrr ro tl-re relationship betr.r,een plaintiffs and defendants. Earlier, the 1>r: i , tifl No. I filed O.S. No.3 ol 2OO2 on the f-rle of XIII Additional Senior r'r'il .Iudgc, seeking, paftition of the propertl against the Delendant fJo ; I and 2 and threr. others i.e., two sisters and her mothcr. The nt r n grievance of thc plaintifl is that the Defendant No.1 during the <:o rLmencernent of thr: trial and in the written statement had made defanr Lror1. statement ancl openly threatened the plaintiff No. 1 to assass i ratc her character during cross exalrrination and threatened bc t ) the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit. It is also contended in the r,,.- tten statement filed by the Defendant No. 1 in the above suit ar u r made defamatorv statement that the plaintiff No. 1 left her pa r i rnal horr-re without ( o flNR,J CCCA No.E3 ol2020 marriage ar-rd sta,rted with the Plaintiff No.2 and questioned the marriage of plaintifl No. I w,ith plaintiff No.2, though the piaintiff Nos.1 and 2 claimed thel' are legally tvedded ll'ife ald husband married on

12.i0.1989 and thcir lirst child was born on 24.O4.199 1, ho"vever the defendalt No.1 gave a instruction to his counsel to suggest that pla-rntiff No.2 had illicit relatronship s'ith mother in-law i.e., mother of the 1'r plaintiff, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and also to the extent of "r'ent deposed that tu,o children of the plaintifl No.1 u'ere born out of the alleged illicit relationship between the 2rrd plaintiff ald their mother and also repeatecl the defarning statement Ln his chief affidavit against them and also stated that their father ctrught hold the plarntiff No.2 and their mother red-handedly rvhile they were having illicit relationship.

22. Though the contention of the defendants is that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have made not an1' defamator-\' statements against the plaintiff Nos. l and 2, however slated that thet e is no proof or marriage between appellant Nos.l and 2 is produced to substantiate that the marriage happened on 12.10.1989.

23. Admittedly the said marriage certificate was in the harld of the plaintiff No.2, however the defendant No.l wantedly and deliberately made false statement against the appellants, that the plaintiffs being .10 NNR J CCCA No.83 of 2020 involvcd in the rllegal activities, which causes carl j r l hardsl-rip to the plaintiff

24. Dven in the written statement lited in repr11 1e tl-re paragraph No.13, that it is reiterated the statemenr made irr )S No.3 of 2OO2 is true and correct ald also conterrded statements o: ,ri_'lclrdant Nos.1 & 2 are correct and the re is no defamatory statemcr rs ar all, as state d by the plaintifis.

25. Coming to the evidence, even in the eviden<.<. rf the DW. 1, in the present suit, it is reiterated b1. the defendant llo I rhat r.,.hatcver is mentioned in Ex.A2-Written Statement is truc ir I I cr>rrect and ever: deposed and further reiterated that appellant Nc, I u-as having illicir relation u,ith appellant No.2 and denving their rrrrr liage performed on

12.10.1989 and a,lso reiterated the same stand rrs :;rated in the crossr examination and written statement

26. The contention of the appellants/plaintilf ; h:rve specilicalh stated about and imputation of certain allegatror-r i,hich dir-ectl1- affecr the character of the plaintiffs and unless and unt I thel' are proved thr: question of taking the same as a true statement rl .: :s not arise.

27. The defendant is claiming the absolute prir i .ees on the grounrl that the said statement are made during the c,t rse of evidence an,j statements made in the judicial proceedings arcl i is also argued that .l#E;;g 11 NTJR,J cccA No.63 0t 2020 in view of the prrvileges being extended to the defendants the statement which u,as made in the u'ritten statement, so also in the cross examination does not come s'ithin the definttion of defamation as the defendants enjol the absolute privilege, AS thel' are made during the judicial proceedings

28. Learned counsel for t}-re appellants has relied on the judgment ol Rc,m Jethmalani u. Subramqniam Suamgl, wherein the Delhi High Court had awarded Rs.5,00,000/- lo the appellant therein for the damages, as nothing on record to shoq' that the rr'ritten submissions were filed in reply to any question by the Commission u'hich the defendant therein u'as foutrd to ans$'er and that ollending positlon, q,as in any event relevant to the inquiry belore the commission, hence absolute privilege cannot be available of b1'the defendants.

29. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the foilowing judgments, 1\ K.Daniel u. T.Hgmauathg Anna2 ii) Esbt H-Flex Priaute Limited & Anr. V. Vulkan Technologies Pvt. Ltd3 till Brig. B.C.Rana u. Ms.Seernd Katoch & ors.a ' 2009 sCC online Del .14 ' 1985 scc online Ker 110 t 20t5 scc online cat 4421 o zotz scc ontin Det 5421 \ 12 NNR,J CCCA No.83 of 2020 30' Per contra, Leaned counsel ror the responder ts/defenclants has relied o'r Rajindra. Kishore a. Durga sahis, u'h: -r:in the Alrahabad High Court has passed the following order u,hrch r-( i (1s as undcr 1 8. Notu ordinailq e cross-"-xamining counsel I t : . t .o persortttl interest irt tlrc result of the case-except of c()r . se, tlte r, ormal professional interest. of euery counsel to tuin his .r.;e ctncl etlet.]) question put bg hin to shake the cred_it of ct --rut:.;s t:, pre:;rtntecl to be disinterested. Therefore, if a uitness irz.stt,r r 1 of replyitg to /ris qzresllorrs, giues the reply ottachinq the t.t ru-a.:tcr o] tlte counseL hirnself he conno| claim ang piuilege rtl,t,, srtbseqrtentfi/ suecl for slander. But tuhere the cross_exantr a,tq cotntsel is hirnself a p(ttA to the cimhvlL proceeclings urrar. Scr_-. l).t7, Cr. P.C. and puts a question to a uitness uho is al:; e poftA it tlle olher cross case, and in anstuer to his questiorr rr : rr.,rlnes-s grre.s on ansluer defarnatory of counsel,s character. i :antrct be saicl thctt the ansLuer is [rreleuant to the inquiry or ht_ no .efere,nce tc.; the proceedings. In such a situation it is diJ'fictttt i,r a utitnetss to draw ang fine distinction bettueen the positiott t - lis qtte::tiorrcr as counsel and as pclrtA. I am therefore inclinerl c, the uiettt that the ansuter giuen by the respond_ent did rtot c, r.;.s t/re limit of reLeuance tn ttieut of the peculiar position of the y t.t[ntrl..f ctppe,llcLnt tuho tuas appeaing both as a partA and as cr)it LSel in hrs owtt cause. I 9. 1 dismiss this appeal but in tk-eircum:;t, ,tces d.irect the parties to bear their ou.tn costs throughout.

20. Before leauing this case I u..tould like to drat.t the attention of the Lau.t Commisston to the unsatisfactory s;t ; \z of laut utith regard to the doctine of absolute piuilege as ap1 I e,rl to u.rifnesses rnaking defarnatory statements in judicial procsr,,i rtgs. As the lau t 't 996 SCC Ontine A| 149 13 NNR,J CCCA No.83 oI 2020 of torts had not been codtfied aet, it is still gouerned_ by the English Law on the ground of equity, justice and good_ consctence. But the reasons ort u_thich the absolute piuilege of a tuitness is founded under the English Laut are not cthuays uatid in tndia. Thot reason ts that uitnesses ir jucLiciaL proceeclings must 97iue euidence fearlessly and tuithout j'eur of be q liable Jor clancLges for ang statement made by them. But in lrtdia it ts notoious that this piuilege is grossly abused. It is not uncommonr Jbr example, for a person charged u.)ith the offerLce of ciminaL frespass to come foruLard utith the defence that he went there on the inuitation of a lady of the house u.tho tuos on intirtate tenns uith him. I can do no better than dra u.t the attentrcn of the Comnission to the foLlouting obseruation of Sir ChctrLes Amotd White, C.J. irt In re p. Venkata reddg: "It seems monstrous that clt accused person, just because he happens to occupA the T.tositiort of ant ac,ttsed, should be entitled to utter anA malicious wLtruths that may corne into his head and so tuontonly defame the complainant's character. The common instance mag be gtuen, so far as mg expeience e.rtertds in this Presidency of an accused person ctLLeging without good faiih that his prosecution is d.ue to his hauiq enjoAed intmoral intimacg with one of complalnant's femaLe relations. A blackguardlg attempt to besmirch the honour of a famity in retaliation for an honest prosecutiort ought to be pwtlshable at law and according to the Penal Code, 186O it is."

21. The question for tl.Le Commission to consider ls uhether the absolute priuilege enjoAed by such a witness in defence to a ciuil action for slander should be curtatled in the public interest, and if so, to what ertent. A copA of this judgment be sent to the Lau..t Co mmis s ion. App e al dismis se d. 14 NNR J CCCA No.83 of 2020

31. [n this regard, it is imperative to Iook to the j - lgment passed b] High Court of Delhi in Ram Jethmalani a. Subra.; naniam Swamg6, uterein the Court observed that nothing on recol r to shou, that thc rvrittcr-r submission were filed in reply to anr cluestton bv thc Commission which the defendant was found 1c irnsu,er and that offending position, was in any event relevart to th: rr-rquiry before thc Commission. Basic ingredients not fulfilled. I) orectron provided cannot be avaijed by the defcndant. [n the said jrdgment it is also obsen'ed that that absolute privilege is not absolrr € ln the contcxt ol ireing infinite, if rn,hat is stated is necessarv t r relevant to tire proceedings, imrnunity would be absolute ald thc r :levant par-agraphs are extracted for better understanding and read re , r-ence: "67. Duen the issue of absolute piuilege has ra ttined a subject matter of considerable debate. Is absolute piullec = aLtsolute itt the sense of being infinite? As lote as 1998, in the dct i.sion reporled as 1998 (1) Atl ER 625, Waple u. Surreg Countg Cott t:;.1, it uas heLd: "Tle absolute priuilege uhich appl[es to state,t t r ts made it tlte course oJ' judicial or quasi-judicial proceeclir qs and in the documents made in such proceedings, utould c,nlu be entitled u,lere it uas strictly necessary to do so in or,1 . ' to protect those Luho u.tere to participate in the proceedings _ iom being sLted themselues." 68. The decision bings out that absolute piuileg.- it not absolute in the context of being infinite. Euen uhen the occt s,iort is piuileged one gets no licence to utter ineleuant and ; :onclalous things unrelated to the proceedings. If uhat is srale. is necessary or releuant to the proceedings, immunity u.nuld be rL t:;olu.te. I I I ', I I I ' 20oo ScC On{ine Det 14 IVNR,J CCCA No.83 ol 2020 the decistort reporled os

69. I would be failirLg in not noting a feu, decisions which haue highlighted the self-limiting spon and sweep of the deJence of qualified priuilege. 70. Quattfied pnuilege maA be defeated and its protection destroyed bg proof of express malice. But hctw is express malice to be estabLished? (1 872) LR 4 PC 71 . In 495, Laughton u. Bishop of Sodor, in a charge to his clergg irt conuocation, the Bishop opined, in a rather harsh lattguage, upotl Q speech made bg a Borrtster u.tho had been instructed to oppose ct bill before the House of Keys, promoted by Gouernment, and tuhiclt uested additionat Ecclesiastical patronage in the Bishnp ctrtd in tthich the conduct of the Bishop tuas attacked and uruuorthy motiues were attibuted to the Bishop. What uas spoken by the Bishop rzcs sent to a neuspoper Jor publication. 93. Since latu of defamation, by making actionable certa r utterances, n)ns counter to another tuidely cLcceptecl legal tetlettt the ight to freedom of expression, the ttLto haue been hannonised by judicial process so that an indiuiduat's ight oJ piuacy and protection of honour and reputatiort is preser ued and ctt the same time the public [rLterest in free speech is also protected. 104. Unforfitnately, in India, Lanu of Damages and in partiatlar in relation to defomation hos not deueloped at the same pace as it has deueloped in the European counties and the United States of Arheico. Punitiue damages in defamatiort are not owarded in India. Domages awarded are a recompense to the Loss of honour and reputation. Inherently, quantiftcation is a problent as lLonour and reputation are inherently incapable of being ualued in tenns of moneA. More often than not, loss o/ honour antd reputatiort louters the image of the person in the eyes of his fiends and relatiues and he suffers sociol isolation. If he is a professional, he may not suffer nonetary loss cs his clients would engage him for his professionoL skill and not his personaL choracter. This appears to be the reason that the plaintiff , in relation to his eornings made no ottempt to establish that after the offending words were uritten and spoken, his eamings suffered d dip.

107. Consideing the professionol standing of the plaintiff and his stature in sociol life I autard damages in sum o/ Rs.5 lacs in fouour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 16 NNR.J CCCA No.83 of 2020

32. In the decision reported IN Pandag Surindr r Nath Sinha u Bageshwari Prasad.z, distinction betr.r,een absol rte and qualilied privilege was brought out as under : (t) Irt ttbsohtt<. ltiuileqe, it is the occasion uthich is 1t [utleqed cttrcl tt,ltett otrce the naltu e oJ' the occasion rs shorun, it follou': , (rs (u nece.ssary in.ference, that euery communication on that occas,( r, is protected; irt qualrJled priu ege, the occasion is not piuileged, ur t;l tlte defendant ha.s shorr.,rr lrctu lltat occasiort utas used. It is not r t ottglt to Ltaue art interest or tt dttty h rnaking a statement the nece':: ity of the eislence of an interest of duty in making the statement corr,1 ltined of, rnust ctlso be shotun. (ti) ht absolttt.e piuilege, the defendant gets absol: , liabilitg; h a quolified priuilege, the defendant ge't; tt conditional exe mp tio rt f ro rn liabiLitg. exemption .[ront. = (iii) tn absolute priuilege, the defendant is exemp!.r'r' from Liabililg euen uttrcn therr: ts malice on his parl; in quaLified pit'i't ge, the de-fertdart ts erern.ptecl jronr Lkbitit.g onlg uhen there is no ma.l t on. his prtt1.. = (iu) In absohte pnuilege, statements are protected n. oll ciratnslances, irrespecttue of th<z presence of good or bad motiue.; nt cluolified priuilege, euen after o case of quolifi"ed piuilege h:. s been established by the deJerdant, it may be met by the plaintiff p '' 'uing tn repLg improper or e.uil motiue on the part of the defenda..'., in tuhich case defen-se of qualifted piuilege uanishes and the plt rtiff succeeds; artd (t') In. absolute piuiLege as tuell as in qualified pri ; L,zge, the defendanl has to prout- his plea of pri"uilege, but with this dilj zrence thot in cLbsolute pnuilege the defense is absolute and irra. Lttable by pLarntiff, uLereas in qualifiecl priuilege the defense is not tr t:;olute but reputable by the pLaiLttff.

33. On perusal of the decisions ald law discus r ed above, the pornt u'ould arose belore this Court that in view of tlx: eLdmission made bv the defendants that whatever statement he has nade is with lull r,f conscious axd that he further reiterated that hr: rvas sticking to the 'AlR1961PATl64 17 NNR,J CCCA No.83 ot 2020 same statement made that u,as made in the written statement but als<-r in the cross examination

34. Now the only aspect which has to be seen, q'hether the said r.r'ritten stateme nt and statemen[s made during the cor.trse of eVidence and cross examination would come within the preview of j udicial privilege and absolute privilege or not?

35. To knolr' the statement made by the delcndant No.1 for apprcciating the applicability oi absolute privilege or not. I rror-rld like to extract the exact r.r,ording/ statement by the defendant No, 1 ir-r the Chiel affidavit, in OS No.3 of 2OO2, the paragraph Nos.5, 6, 7 *'hich ts reiterated hereunder "5. In the gear 1979 mg father red handedly caught hold rrty mother and Ashok Kumar uthen they ore hauing iLIegaL intercourse in our house. Imrnediatelg she tied to commit suicide bg pouirtg kerosense of her bodg and lit the fire." 6. Durtng that peiod also Mr.Ashok Kumar maintainecl his illegol relationship with my Mother bg taking separate room near her parents house up to 1982" 7. Wh-ereas the plaintiff grown uery fat. Whereas the said Ashok Kumar adutsed to utite X Class exam uhen she tuas studging VIII Class in Sarasuathi Kanya Vidyalaga High School, R.P.Roctd, Seannderabad. On the aduise of said Astnk Kumar Plctintiff went to Ninnal and witten X Closs exam as a Piuate Candidate. For u.titing X Class exam at Nirmal, the said Ashok uent along uith her and staged 1 5 dags there and deueloped illegal intimacg. 18 NNR,J CCCA No.83 ol202A

36. On perusal of tl-re Chief Examination affida" L of DW.1, and at Paragraph No.14, rvhich reads as under "l subrnit thot tultoteuer stotement made in a-< No.3/20()2 are tnte ond cotrect. Tlrc Appeal is pending.before rl e Hon'ble High (-ottrl r reaclLl stcttle,rl tlte opercttion of Judgnu,tr: trtcl Decree. So the plainttff does rtoL ltaue arty ights to make a t 1 comment and. not sttpposa to file tle false case against ne rluring the subjttdice.'

37. Applying thr: pri,ciples laid dorvn in the ab:,,e judgments citecl above, it is clear Lhat Lhe parties have to make or.r. r,r,ritten statcmenl and made submission duri^g the cross examinatir, r with regard to thr case only', the sr-rit i.e., oS No.3 of 2002 rvas filed ;eeking partitior-r or' the properties arcl the sratemenr rvhich ',vas madr by the defendan ts, has r-ro rclerence at all to the subject matter ol t-: proceedings. It i:, furth er true that to se ek protection under doct - rLe of the absorutr privilege, it shr>uld be rvithin the reference matte - of said ;rroceedirg. The delendants have made derogatorv remarks z glainst the praintiri No.2 (brother i, ltrrv) ard mother of plaintiff No.1 ir rd it is not the casr: that statements \\'erc made as to the non-entitk:rr ent of the share b' the plaintifl No.2 in the sr.rit for partition.

38. It is necessary to mention here that the r r:fendant No.l has particularlS' stated in the chief Examination affid:' it and also in cross Examination that whate'er statement made in o S No.3 ctf 2oo2 ar,: true ard correcr and further srated ;;; "r tLiir stand.bg ,that l mentioned in nry chief euidence and also mtl t_ ttitten statement itt ! I I i I I I I I I I I i I i I I 19 AJIVR,J CCCA No.83 oI2020 present suit i.e., OS 1[o.3] of 2010'. Hence, the defendalt No,l in full sense averred in the u,ritten statement and stated the remarks in cross examlnatlons.

39. It is clcar. that the defendants has made personal rcmarks during the during the course of cross-examination rvhich has no relation wlth the partilion suit and the defamatory statemenls macle by the defendar-rts agarnst the plaintiffs convey unambiguous message and mcaning that the plaintiffs lead and are living in illicit relation and that plaintiff No.2 '"r,as having immoral relationship u,ith hrs mothcr rn la\r' and the statement made by defendant No. i are blasphemous in nature and are intended and calculated to defame the piaintiffs. Thercfore, a u,itness making a statement in judicial proceedings, s'ho is snbsequently sued for slander for having made that statement, carr claim absolute privilege unless it can be shou,n that the statement was made with reference to the proceedings before the trial Court

40. In the present suit, the statement which are made would amount to defamation, as the statement which are made whether it is true or not but are not related to the entitlement of share in the partition suit and it clearly amounts imputation made against the character of the plaintiff No.2 and mother of plaintiff No.1 20 NNR,J CCCA No.83 ot 2020

41. Though the findings given by the learned 1r -al Court that the mother ol the plaintiff No.1 and defendants u.er.r nor examined to refute the allegatio. canrot change the nature .i .-re state*ent and once pinte facie rhc slatcmenr or evidence made r not related to the surt for partition and thc statemcnt made by th t defendernts being admittcd by the defcnda,ts, the clucstion of necc:s,, itv to cxamine the mother of the plarntiff No, r anci defendants carn( t be the reason to discard the contention of the pl:rir-rtiffs. Hence, ris court is of the opinion that the statement madc by the crefendarr fro.l will not come under the umbrella of absolutc privilege. 42 Thor-rgh therc is no c'idencc lcd to qua.tifi r re actual damages caused to assess the compensertion of damages. Il _rt, considering the nature of thc allegation re'e ecr ar-rd that the stat, - :: being made this court. Hence, this court feels that it u'ould be :L.r rropriate to assess the damages at Rs. 1,OO,0OO/ . Therefore, defenr,i 't No.1 is liable to pay compensalion .mount of Rs. l,00,OOO/_ t, the pl:rintiffs for causing loss and reputation for clelamation.

43. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, a,:,: rrdingly, this Court deems it proper to au,ard damages for a sum of Rs. t,OO,0O0/_ (Rupees one lakh only) i, favour or the plaintiffs and agai rst derendant No.l withi. a period of three mo.ths from the date of r I ;,:ipt. of copy of this order. Costs. .,, 21 NIVR,J CCCA No.83 of 2020 Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, sha_ll stand closed SD/- K, SRINIVASA JOINT REGI AR /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER .'/ To, 1 The XllAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' S.ecunderabad i or; CC to Sri Kowturu Pavin Kumar, Advocate [oPUC] 3. o;; cc to snr P SASIDHAR REDDY Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies SV Si S,\ W HIGH COURT DATED:01 11212025 t I () 'tlt '-u. ri(. 'i :-' ? s [r:\' q-) ".:- JUDGMENT + DECREE CCCA.No.83 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CCCA 6 ?,b 5 D- [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA clTY CIVIL CO URT APPEAL NO: 83 OF 2020 Between :

1. Smt.G.Satyakumari, Wo.Sri Ashok Kumar, Dieri oer LR's A-3&4' aqed 52 vears. occ_ norr"*ir'u-a;in- ii" in" R/o.H No 1-3-176135122 tN1gl5 bnigyatarmi Nagar, Kawadiguda, Secunderabad 2. Sri.Ashok Kumar, S/o. Sri.Sayanna, aged 63 years' Occ- Business' Both are the R/o H No t-slialiiii' ln"'Glsl an'gvalaxmi Nagar' Kawadiguda Secunderabad 3. Smt.U.Madhuri, W/o Sri. P.Madhusudhan, D/o Sri'U Ashok Kumar' Aged 30 4. Sri.U. Hrishikesh, S/o'Sri.U.Ashok Kumar, Aged 20 years, occ. Student nlo H [to 1-3-11N3611 . Talla Basti Aooeilant Xos S a"nO-'' a- ii" tt " Kbivadiguda. HYderabad-80. Appellant No's.3 & 4 are brought on record as LR's of deceased Appellant iii*i oi .olzozs' vide lA No 1 of 2025 in cccA No 1 as per court No 83 of 2020. years, Occ. Housewife "t&ri ...APPellants/Pla intiff AND 1 2 J Sri.G.Srinivas, S/o. late Sri.G.Mallesh,AS.-eqa!9u! 49 years' Occ- E;.i;# ii;tti iie tneh/o n-rlo o -i'iaalzc' Bholakpur' Secunderabad Sri.G.MaheshKumar,S/olatesiLG.MalleshAged.about4Tyears,occ. Business Both are tne alo.iirui-sJ-ioa/iib, dholrkpur, sei;underabad Sri.Janqala Narsing Rao, S/o. Sri J Babaiah, {ged about 63 vears' Occ- Business. R/o.H No l2-1 I-l"adt11dl)mii oimania' Secuhderabad ...ResPondents/Defendants Appeal Under Section 96 Order XLI Rule 1 & 2 of C P C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 06/10/20f7 maOe in O S No 31 of 2010 on the file of the Court "i This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petitr"on and upon tiearing the arguments of Sri Kowturu G" iir Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad' 'j::r.F-j+*I. *.' Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners and sri p sasrrl ar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents. This doth the order and decree as follows :

1. That the Crty Civil Court Appeal be and hereby is pz r lv allowed 2. That accordingly, this Court deems it proper to awarc rlamages for a sum of Rs .1 00 000/- (Rupees one lakh) in favour of ther ; rintiffslnd against defendant No 1 with in a period of three months fror I t te date cf rJceipt of copy of th is order.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs. ST/ K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 The XllAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunrl rabad 2 Two CD Copies S VS'S,\ 4t" HIGH COURT DATED:0111212025 DECREE CCCA.No.83 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CCCA G*^ ("