MAHENDER RAM V HARNANDAN PRASAD

 

 

TITLE OF THE CASE:MAHENDER RAM V HARNANDAN PRASAD CITATION:AIR 1958 PAT 445 COURT:PATNA HIGH COURT BENCH:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.L. UNTWALIA Reputation is an asset to each and every person. Any type of deliberate false communication, either written or spoken, that can harm a person’s reputation or decreases the respect, regard or confidence of a person; or induces disparaging, or a hostile or disagreeable opinion or feeling against a person is known as defamation. Article 19(2) has imposed reasonable exemption to freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19(1) (a). Contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence are some exceptions[1].The essentials for successful defamation suit are: ■      Statement must be Defamatory ■      Statement must refer to the Plaintiff ■      Statement must be Published ■      Statement must be false In the case of Mahender Ram v Harnandan Prasad[2] we will be discussing regarding the third Ingredient of a Cause of Action and that is the statement must be published. FACTS OF THE CASE In the case of Mahendra Ram vs. Harnandan Prasad, The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for realisation of Rs. 500/- as damages for defamation of the plaintiff by the defendant. He added that he is a respectable man and is held in esteem and regard by the public. He lived in a rented house belonging to the defendant. There was some dispute between Plaintiff’s son and the defendant. The defendant sent a registered notice in Urdu from Sultanpur to the plaintiff at Siwan.The defendant wrote a defamatory letter in Urdu which is not known to the plaintiff. The letter was read over to him by a third person. The notice contained defamatory and false allegations against him and he was very much Pained and surprised at them. The defamatory statement harmed the plaintiff’s reputation. He suffered both, mental and physical injuries and, therefore, filed a suit claiming damages. The publication was made of a defamatory statement written in Urdu to the plaintiff by the way of written letter. Plaintiff did not know Urdu and therefore needs another person to read it. The defence taken by the defendant was that the plaintiff had instituted the suit in order to harass the defendant in all possible ways and the present suit was filed to put pressure on the defendant. His further case was that the notice in question was a forged and fabricated document and that the plaintiff had not been lowered in the estimation of the public due to the alleged recitals contained in the notice. The defendant post the letter to plaintiff’s address and the words used in the letter did not connote defamation as the circumstances under which the letter had been sent did not go to show that the defendant intended to defame the plaintiff and that the plaintiff himself was responsible for giving publication to the contents of the notice. ISSUES The issues raised in the context of the case- 1.     Was there any intention to defame the plaintiff by defendant? 2.     Whether the defamatory statement is published? ANALYSIS AND RELEVANT CASES One of the essential of fulfilling the conditions for defamation is The statement must be published[3] It means that the defamatory matter must come into the knowledge of the person other than the person defamed.There are certain caselaws that are applicable and reliable to this case and are some landmark cases which have interesting facts or have an important court ruling. The laws are as following:- 1.       In the case of Queen Empress V. Taki Husain[4]a letter containing defamatory statement sent to the plaintiff and no others person read it then there is no defamation. There must be communication to some third person to prove defamation. As,It seems well settled that mere writing of words howsoever defamatory they may be, to a person intended to be read by him & not intended to be read by a third person, does not constitute an offence of defamation and does not make a man liable to pay damages in a Civil action. 2.       It is necessary to show that the writer intended his defamatory writing to be read by person or persons other than the addressee but in a landmark case ofT.V.RamasubhaIyer vs. A.M.A.Mohideen[5]where Defendant published a statement without any intention to defame the defendants, since his reputation was damaged, the court awarded him damages. Since, there was no intention of defame, still the plaintiff is awarded with the damages. 3.       In the case of S.K. Sundaram[6], it was held that telegram amounts to publication as the message is read by telegraphic staff also. 4.       In the case of Huth v. Huth[7]husband wrote defamatory letter to his wife and children but was opened and read out by the butler, it was held that defendant was not liable because it was not the butler’s business to open the letters addressed to their employers.   JUDGEMENT The case of Mahender Ram v Harnandan Prasad[8]was followed up by THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.L. UNTWALIA of the Patna High Court. According to the observation by the court The only facts pleaded are that the plaintiff on opening the envelope found that the letter was in Urdu character which the plaintiff did not know and hence he got the Contents read by third person in the presence of some other persons. As stated above, nowhere was pleaded nor has it been found that the defendant wrote the letter in Urdu character knowing that the plaintiff did not know Urdu and therefore, it would necessitate his asking somebody to read the letter to him. In absence of a pleading and finding of this important fact, there was no publication and it was held that the defendant was not responsible for the alleged publication of the libellous matter. CONCLUSION Taking up the first issue (Was there any intention to defame the plaintiff by defendant?) according to me, Defendant being landlord surely knew about the plaintiff’s script and I think this was the done intentionally as he as frustrated with the argument which was going on between plaintiff’s son and the defendant. Second issue was (Whether the defamatory statement is published?) yes, as soon as the defamatory statement is communicated to the third person it leads to the publication. Therefore, Where a letter is sent in a language unknown to the recipient, he needs a third person to read it to him. If any defaming statement is made in it, it will constitute defamation even if it was sent as a private letter, since the aid of a third person was needed to read it. But the very important aspect of this case was not even pleaded or even raised that the whether defendant was aware about the fact that plaintiff’s doesn’t know Urdu? And In absence of such a proof it cannot be held that the writer would be liable for defamation simply because the writing got publication.

 

---

[1]INDIA CONST.art. 19.

[2]Mahender Ram v Harnandan Prasad, AIR 1958 PAT 445.

[3]MadhaviGoradia Divan, Facets of Media Law pg. 135, second edition 2013.

 

[4]Queen Empress V. Taki Husain, ILB 7 All ₂₀₅ (A).

[5]T.V.RamasubhaIyer vs. A.M.A.Mohideen, AIR 1972 MAD 398.

[6]S.K. Sundaram, _(2001)2SSC ₁₇₁: AIR ₂₀₀₁ SC _2374.

[7]Huth v. Huth, _(1915)3 KB ₃₂: _(1914-15)ALL ER Rep ₂₄₂ (CA).

[8]MadhaviGoradia Divan, Facets of Media Law pg. 137, second edition 2013.