J. Jayalalithaa vs Nakheerangopal

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—Heard both sides. Heard the submissions made by Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, learned counsel for the

applicant/third defendant and Mr. P.T. Perumal, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

The respondent herein has filed a Suit in C.S. No. 198 of 2001 against (1) Pulavar S. Sankaralingam, the Editor of Namadhu M.G.R. (Tamil

Daily) (2) S. Venkatesh, the Printer and Publisher, Namadhu M.G.R. (Tamil Daily) (3) J. Jayalalitha, the Founder Namadhu M.G.R. (Tamil Daily),

the applicant herein, and (4) All India Anna DMK, represented by the applicant herein for the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that the statements made by the defendants in their publications in Tamil Daily Namadhu M.G.R. on 23.8.2000, 26.8.2000,

28.8.2000, 30.8.2000, 11.9.2000 and on 15.9.2000 are defamatory.

(b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents and subordinates from publishing in any media anything defamatory against the

plaintiff in any manner again or by way of repeating any of the false and defamatory statements made by the defendants against the plaintiff in their

Tamil Daily Namadhu M.G.R. on 23.8.2000, 26.8.2000, 28.8.2000, 30.8.2000, 11.9.2000 and on 15.9.2000 or similar or further statements in

connection with plaintiff''s role in interacting with sandalwood Veerappan and his gang men, in the matter of rescuing Dr. Rajkumar and his 3

relatives.

(c) A direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- to the plaintiff as damages for the monetary loss and mental agony suffered by

him due to the false and defamatory statements made and published by the defendants, and

(d) A direction to the defendants to pay the cost of this Suit to the plaintiff and for further relief deem fit.

After receiving Judge''s summons in the said Civil Suit, it seems the first defendant-Pulavar S. Sankaralingam has passed away and as no steps

were taken for impleading his legal representatives within the time allowed by law, an order has been passed by this Court on 3.8.2008 recording

the abatement of the Suit as against the first defendant. Written statement on behalf of all the defendants have been filed and the Suit is now ripe for

trial. At this stage, the applicant/third defendant has come forward with the present Application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., praying for an

order rejecting the Plaint on the following grounds:

(i) The Suit for declaration outside the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not maintainable.

(ii) The statements made by the applicant and the publications made in the above said Tamil Daily were made without any malice and keeping the

public interest in mind, criticising the conduct of the respondent/plaintiff in his capacity as the Government emissary sent to have discussion with the

forest brigand Veerappan to get the release of the film Actor Dr. Rajkumar and three of his relatives who had been abducted by the gang of

Veerappan and held hostages.

The learned counsel for the applicant would make his submissions based on the above said contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of

the Application. Apart from the said two grounds raised in the affidavit, no other new ground has been urged in addition to the submissions made

repeating and reiterating the contentions raised by the applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the prayer made in the Application. The learned

counsel further contended that the action taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Karnataka and also the attempt made

by the respondent/plaintiff to get one of the TADA accused discharged from the charge by withdrawing the charge against him in a case pending

before the Mysore Special Court were strongly criticized by the Apex Court. But the judgment in which such critical remarks were made has not

been placed before this Court. It is true that the learned counsel for the respondent does not deny the submission made by the learned counsel for

the applicant that in the matter of withdrawal of the charge against a TADA accused before the Special Court, Mysore, the Hon''ble Apex Court

took exception and came heavily upon the authorities besides setting aside the order permitting withdrawal of the charge. The same, at best, be a

piece of evidence to justify the statement published as an answer to the claim made in the Suit. But it cannot be the basis on which rejection of the

Plaint can be sought for.

For the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the Suit for declaration outside the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is not

maintainable, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited a judgment of the S.S. Subramani, J. in Somasundaram Vs. Liyakat Ali and another,

wherein, His Lordship has made a clear observation that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive and any relief of declaration which

falls outside the scope of Section 34 may be granted by the Civil Court u/s 9, C.P.C.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Veruareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and Others Vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy and Others, while dealing with the

scope of Section 42 of the old Specific Relief Act 1877, expressing similar opinion observed that the said Section was not exhaustive and

declaration which were outside the scope of the said Section could be sought for u/s 9, C.P.C.

In Vankamamidi Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Chatlapalli Seetharamaratna Ranganayakamma, the Hon''ble Supreme Court while dealing with the

scope of Section 9, C.P.C., has made the following observations:

Under Section 9, C.P.C., the Courts shall, subject to the provisions contained therein, have jurisdiction to try all Suits of civil nature excepting Suits

cognizance of which is either expressly or impliedly barred. When a legal right is infringed, a Suit would lis unless there is a bar against

entertainment of such Civil Suit and the Civil Courts would take cognizance of it. Therefore, the normal rule of law is that Civil Courts have

jurisdiction to try all Suits of Civil nature except those of which cognizance is either expressly or by necessary implication excluded. The rule of

construction being that every presumption would be made in favour of the existence of a right and remedy in a democratic set-up governed by rule

of law and jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is assumed. The exclusion would, therefore, normally be an exception. Courts generally construe the

provisions strictly when jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is claimed to be excluded....

The above said decisions, both of this Court and of the Hon''ble Apex Court, will make it clear that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is not

exhaustive but only illustrative and that the same will not control the power of the Court to grant declaration of civil nature u/s 9, C.P.C.

The second contention raised on behalf of the applicant does not need elaboration, because it pertains to the merits of the Suit itself. The

applicant has not disputed having made a statement as published in the above said Tamil daily. On the other hand, the applicant wants to justify the

statements on the ground of truth and fair criticism in the public interest. Both are the grounds of defence available to the defendants in an action for

damages for defamation which the applicant has promptly raised in the written statement. It shall not be appropriate to go into the soundness or

correctness of such a plea of defence in this application which will have a bearing on the merits of the Suit. Therefore, without expressing any

opinion regarding the merits of such a plea raised by the applicant, this Court simply comes to the conclusion that the said plea is not a ground on

which the Plaint can be rejected. Even assuming that a declaration outside the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be maintained,

the Plaint cannot be rejected as the respondent/plaintiff has also prayed for a relief of permanent injunction not to repeat such publications in future

and a further relief of damages for the loss caused to the reputation of the respondent/plaintiff.

The learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the second prayer in the Plaint, namely the prayer for permanent injunction restraining

the defendants, their agents and subordinates from publishing in any media anything defamatory against the plaintiff in any manner again or by way

of repeating any of the false and defamatory statements made by the defendants against the plaintiff in their Tamil Daily Namadhu M.G.R. on

23.8.2000, 26.8.2000, 28.8.2000, 30.8.2000, 11.9.2000 and on 15.9.2000 or similar or further statements in connection with plaintiffs role in

interacting with Sandalwood Veerappan and his gang men, in the matter of rescuing Dr. Rajkumar and his 3 relatives, has become infructuous

because both Veerappan and Dr. Rajkumar are no more. This Court is not in a position to accept the said contention made by the learned counsel

for the applicant for the simple reason that the injunction sought for by the plaintiff to the effect that derogatory statements against him in connection

with his role in interacting with the Sandal wood Veerappan and his gang men in the matter of rescuing Dr. Rajkumar should not be made In future,

does not mean that the injunction is sought for in respect of the future role to be played by the respondent/plaintiff. The prayer refers to the role

played by him which came to an end long back. The respondent/plaintiff can very well maintain a Suit for injunction not to publish any

derogatory/defamatory statements relating to the role played by him in the past. Therefore, the said ground raised by the learned counsel for the

applicant deserves to be discountenanced.

Even assuming that the Suit cannot be maintained, as on today, for the relief of declaration and injunction, since the Suit has been filed for

recovery of damages for defamation also, the Plaint cannot be rejected as the prayer for recovery of damages is very much maintainable. All the

grounds raised in this Application are grounds of defence in the Suit and by no stretch of imagination they can be the grounds for rejecting the

Plaint. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Application for rejection of Plaint deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly the Application is dismissed.