Dr. K.R. Vasudevan and Dr. P.N. Ramadevi v. Dr. P. R. Sunil, Dr. K.R. Vijayaraj Sreeragam and Dr. Ramani P.N. Sreeragam

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1941** ## **RSA.No.353 of 2019** **AS 130/2014 of SUB COURT, MANJERI DATED 23-11-2015 OS 111/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED 30-10-2012** ## **APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS** - **1 DR. K.R. VASUDEVAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O RAMAN, NILAMBUR AMSOM AND DESOM, NILAMBUR P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **2 DR. P.N. RAMADEVI, AGED 57 YEARS D/O THANKAPPAN, NILAMBUR AMSOM AND DESOM, NILAMBUR P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SRI.ROHIT NANDAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS** **1 DR. P. R. SUNIL 2/393, PALACE ROAD, NILAMBUR, SECRETARY, I.M.A. BRANCH, PALACE ROAD, NILAMBUR, NILAMBUR AMSOM AND DESOM, NILAMBUR P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679329.** **2 DR. K.R. VIJAYARAJ SREERAGAM, HOSPITAL ROAD, NILAMBUR, PRESIDENT I.M.A. BRANCH, PALACE ROAD, NILAMBUR, NILAMBUR AMSOM AND DESOM, NILAMBUR P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679329.** - **3 DR. RAMANI P.N. SREERAGAM, HOSPITAL ROAD, NILAMBUR, TREASURER, I.M.A. BRANCH, PALACE ROAD, NILAMBUR, NILAMBUR** 2 ## **RSA.353/2019** **AMSOM AND DESOM, NILAMBUR P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679329.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **RSA.353/2019** 3 ## JUDGMENT 1. The suit of the plaintiffs for compensation on the ground of defamation and their appeal met dismissal. Hence they filed the second appeal. 2. The plaintiffs who are spouses and doctors by profession are life members of the Indian Medical Association (IMA for short). The defendants were the office bearers of the Nilambur branch of IMA at the relevant time. The plaintiffs were originally attached to Kondotty branch of the IMA. Their membership was transferred to the Nilambur branch consequent to their transfer from Kondotty to Nilambur. The plaintiffs wrote Ext A1 letter to the first defendant to know why the plaintiffs were not invited for the meetings of the IMA. The first defendant sent Ext A2 reply to the plaintiffs stating that they defaulted the subscription for 2005-2006 and 20062007. Thereafter the first defendant wrote Ext A3 letter to **RSA.353/2019** 4 the plaintiffs stating that they did not remit to the IMA the annual working fund for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. The plaintiffs caused the issuance of Ext A4 legal notice to which they received Ext A5 reply notice. These are the facts. 3. Heard Smt.A.Meena, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants. 4. The plaintiffs did not sue the IMA. The defendants were sued in their individual capacity. Exts A2 and A3 letters were sent to the plaintiffs by the first defendant. Therefore there was no justification for the plaintiffs to sue defendants 2 and 3. The suit against defendants 2 and 3 was without any cause of action. 5. The plaintiffs contended that their image and reputation were tarnished by colouring them as defaulters of annual subscription and annual working fund. According to **RSA.353/2019** 5 them, they being life members were not liable to make any such payment. Let it be so. Even then, there is nothing defamatory in Exts A2 and A3. The contents of Exts A2 and A3 suggesting that the plaintiffs defaulted dues cannot be considered defamatory statements even if no amount was due from them. Therefore the plaintiffs had no cause of action even against the first defendant to sue him for compensation on the ground of defamation. 6. A civil action complaining defamation may be had for a libel or a slander. The plaintiffs alleged libel. A false defamatory statement if written and published constitutes a libel (see Dr P.H.Daniel v. Krishna Iyer - 1982 KLT 1). There has been no publication of any libelous statement in the case even if it is taken that Exts A2 and A3 contained anything defamatory to the plaintiffs. Exts A2 and A3 were not letters published by the first defendant, but letters issued to the plaintiffs. In the absence of a publication of a libel, the plaintiffs were not entitled to **RSA.353/2019** 6 sue the defendants. 7. The plaintiffs examined PWs2 and 3 to establish that their reputation was tarnished. PWs 2 and 3 were not persons to whom Exts A2 and A3 were issued. They were not persons to whom those letters were shown by the defendants. PW3 spoke that the absence of the plaintiffs in the meetings of the IMA lowered their image and prestige. PW3 did not say anything further. His evidence will not take the plaintiffs anywhere. 8. PW2 spoke that when he enquired about the absence of the plaintiffs in the meetings of the IMA, he was told by the defendants that the plaintiffs defaulted the dues. What was allegedly stated to PW2 by the defendants would be slander if defamatory. The plaint is silent about any such slander. The plaint does not contain any pleadings about what the defendants allegedly stated to PW2. The evidence of PW2 is therefore of no relevance **RSA.353/2019** 7 and significance. 9. Libel or slander should be set out in the pleadings. Order VI rule 4 of CPC reads as follows : In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. Libel or slander does fall in the category of cases in which particulars are necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms. Therefore the libel or slander should have been set out in the plaint which the plaintiffs did not do. The alleged defamatory words are not set out in the plaint. For that reason too, the plaintiffs should lose. 10. For different reasons stated above, the plaintiffs **RSA.353/2019** 8 were not entitled to the relief prayed for. Their suit and appeal were correctly dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court. No substantial question of law is involved in the 2[nd] appeal. The same therefore deserves only a dismissal. 11. Dismissed. Sd/- A.M.BABU Judge Mrcs/24.6.