FORM NO.

9 (CIVIL) TITLE
SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN 1 O.S.No.15/2014
SUITS (R.P.91)

Government of Karnataka [C.R.P.47]

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE & J.M.F.C., AT MANGALURU, D.K.

Dated: This the 30th day of August 2016

Present

Smt. SHILPA K.S., B.A.L.,LL.B.,

III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Mangaluru, D.K.

O.S.No.15/2014

Plaintiff : Dr.N.R.Rao, S/o late.Anand Rao, 64

yrs, R/o Rama Anand, Maruthinagar,
Parkala, Udupi Taluk ad District,
Professor of Medicine Head Unit -1,
Kasturba Medical college, Hospital,
Manipal.
(By Pleader : Sri.PPH)

V/S

Defendants : 1. Dr.Ranjeetha Shenoy, W/o

Dr.G.Gurukanth Rao N, 29 yrs,
Department of surgery, A.J Hospital,
Mangalore.
2. Rathnakar Shenoy, S/o late.Ananth
Shenoy, 64 yrs,
3. Jamuna Rani Shenoy, W/o Ratnakar
Shenoy, 60 yrs,
Both are R/o No.3308/1G, 13th main,
3rd cross, BIET road, MCC B block,
Davangere.
4. Veena Vishwanath, W/o Vishwanath,
38 yrs, Hotel business, R/o 2nd main,
2nd cross, Modi compound House,
No.2041, Davangere.
 2 O.S.No.15/2014

5. Khaleel, S/o Khader pasha, 42 yrs,

Prestige cloth shop, R/o Nijalingappa
layout, Behind Amritha vidyalaya,
Davangere.
6. Rathnamma, W/o late.Shri.Ananthayya
urala, 69 yrs, r/o H.No.1948/12, 3rd
main, 9th cross, Vinobanagar,
(D.1 to 3 by Pleader : Sri.KHA)
(D.4 to 6 placed exparte )

Date of institution of suit : 04.02.2014

Nature of suit : Claiming compensation

Date of commencement of
of evidence : 01.03.2016

Date of pronouncement of
judgment : 30.08.2016

Duration : Years months days

02 06 28

(SHILPA K.S.)
III Additional Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC, Mangaluru, D.K

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff has filed the above suit claiming

compensation against the defendants along with costs

of the suit.
 3 O.S.No.15/2014

2. Plaintiffs case in brief is as follows:

The plaintiff is an professor of medicine at

Kasturba hospital and had record of impeccable

selfless service to sick patients over 40 years ago. The

plaintiff had worked and studied at different parts of

the country and as per the last wishes of his beloved

mother he came near to her and in June 1978 his

mother expired. The plaintiff was awarded with many

award of outstanding physician of Karnataka from

Association of Physicians, syndicate Bank, Medical

representative Association of Udupi District, Fellowship

of Indian college of physicians, National conference of

Association of physicians and other several prestigious

orations by the hyper tension society of India. The

plaintiff was in the advisory board of several medical

universities and referee for evaluating the scientific

articles for the prestigious medical journals. The

plaintiff was in the board of advisory for the most

respected medical text book in the world Davidson's

principle and practice of medicine published from

 4 O.S.No.15/2014

England. The plaintiff was a senior member of the

editorial board of diabetic update brought out by the

Indian physicians as reference text book on diabetes

for Indian doctors. The plaintiff has been given good

teacher award for record 6 times by KMC hospital,

teachers day ward by Indian Medical association of

Karnataka for being outstanding medical teacher,

Karnataka state for the year 2000. The plaintiff was

also in the panel of experts for UPSC and University

Grants commission. The plaintiff was the National

President of Hypertension Society of India during the

year 2009-10 and State Chairman of Association of

Physicians of India during the year 2000-2001 and a

Member of Pharmacy Council of India at National level

till date. The plaintiff had received several awards at

the National and State level for his contribution in the

field of health care, teaching and research. In the social

field the plaintiff was the President of G.S.B community

of Manipal for the past 28 years and continued to be

the President till date. The plaintiff was in the Board of

 5 O.S.No.15/2014

Trustees in the Sri.Mahaganapathi Mahamaya Temple

at Shirali Uttara Kannada and the President of Sri.

Vasuki Nagaraja Devasthana at Manipal for the past 20

years and continued to be the same. The plaintiff was

the President of Sri.Gopala Krishna Seva Trust, a

socio-religious organization looking after the temples

and health care of the poor in North Kerala and Coastal

Karnataka. The plaintiff was also the President of

Board of Trustees of Sri.Gopalakrishna Temple

Neeleshwara, Kerala. Being the President of Geeta

Mandir Ganeshotsava Samithi of Manipal for the past

28 years, the plaintiff had encouraged cultural activity

and spread the value of Dharmic way of life. The

plaintiff had also served for 5 years as an independent

non-party member of Manipal mandal panchayath and

addressed the grievances of Manipal public. As a family

they were a closely knit family consisting of his wife

and his 2 children. They always travel together on

vacations, pilgrimage and had their meals and

 6 O.S.No.15/2014

everyday prayer together and were in a contended

happy family.

The defendant No.1 marriage was conducted with his

son Dr.Gurukanth Rao N at Shamili Hall, Udupi on

22nd March, 2010 according to Hindu Customs. As per

the prevailing and well established customs in their

GSB community, all the expenses of the marriage

including Mangalasutra and sarees for the bride and

the expenses for the stay of the birdegroom's relatives,

their travel, expenses incurred for the hall, decoration,

food expenses and photography are to be met by the

bride's family. However as plaintiff does not have any

female child and as he was eager to welcome and treat

the daughter-in-law as his own daughter, he

voluntarily decided to bear the expenses of the

following items and he paid for the following

ornaments, dress etc. for the bride -

a. Cost of Mangala Sutra of five sovereigns of gold

with corals valuing One lakh at that time

b. 5 Kancheepuram sarees worth Rs.45,000/-

 7 O.S.No.15/2014

c. Full cost of stay of our guests and relatives at

Royal International Hotel Rs.15000/-

d. Full cost of photography and videography of

marriage ceremony paid to Mr.Ganesh Shenoy

Shenoy video, Kudroli, Mangalore Rs.65000

(the parents of Dr.Ranjeetha had agreed to share

the expenses on 50:50 basis but at the end they

did not pay anything)

e. Uddina Muhurtha ceremony at Parkala on 21st

March 2010 + Mehendi program in Parkala on

20th March 2010 + Satyanarayana Pooja in

Vighneshwara Hall Parkala on 23rd March 2010

Total expenses Rs.75000/-.

Items presented by us during engagement to Ranjeetha

a. Diamond necklace (Tanishq Rs.1,00,600/-

b. Kancheepuram saree - Rs.8,000/-.

Items presented by us during marriage to Ranjeetha

Bangle Diamond bracelet - Rs.33408/-

Bangle Real ruby stone bracelet - Rs.25477/-

Bangle HCMC Bangle Rs.40909/-

 8 O.S.No.15/2014

Bangle Twisted Rs.53075/-

Chain Rs. 36803/-

Necklace Ruby Rs.58395/-

Pendant Rs.32037/-

Necklace DJ Fancy Rs.95877/-

One ring with 3 American diamond studs. (This was

the personal ring of plaintiff's wife)

5 costly Kanchipuram sarees worth Rs.45000/-

Mangala Sutra with 12 corals (approximately

Rs.100000/-)

One engagement ring to Ranjeetha

Petitioners had purchased all these gifts for her.

The items presented by the petitioner to Ranjeetha are

retained by her.

After the marriage Ranjeetha stayed with her husband

in Parkala in his house from 22nd March to 25th March

2010. On 25th March himself, his wife, his son

Dr.Gurukanth Rao, younger son Dr. Karthik Rao and

defendant No.1 left for their Kula Devasthana in Shirali

for pooja and left Shirali on 27th March 2010. From

 9 O.S.No.15/2014

27th to 29th they have stayed at Samsthana Gowda

Padacharya Kavle Math, Ponda Goa to visit temples.

The defendant No.1 with her parents, i.e., defendant

No.2 and 3, visited various temples on 28th and 29th

March 2010. That on 31st March, his son visited

defendant No.2 and 3's place along with defendant

No.1 for the purpose of marriage reception to be held

on April 3rd in Davanagere. Their son left for Manipal

after reception on the morning of April 4th. The

defendant No.1 stayed back with her parents and

returned to Parkala on April 6th morning. The

defendant No.1 stayed only for 10 days in their house

and she was looked after very well with all love and

affection. She went to Davanagere on 14.04.2010

pursuing her studies and thereafter she has not

returned.

It is submitted that three days prior to the marriage i.e.

on 19.03.2010 the defendant No.1 demanded a sum of

rupees three lakhs from his son Dr.Gurukanth Rao for

paying her final year fees which had to be paid before

 10 O.S.No.15/2014

March 31st 2010. His son had just cleared the bank

loan for his education and did not have such a huge

sum of money. He suggested to her to avail education

loan from State bank of India and agreed to stand as a

guarantor. On the morning of wedding reception in

Davanagere i.e. April 3rd 2010 the defendant No.3

informed his son to make immediate arrangements for

payment of fees as the last date for payment of fees

without fine was already over on 31st March 2010 and

the last date of payment with fine was April 15th 2010.

The plaintiff also told his son since bank loans are not

given to ladies it is your duty to make arrangements for

payment of fees of your wife. Their responsibility is over

after her marriage to you. His son told her that bank

loans are available to ladies and many of his lady

classmates have availed of this facility and completed

their education. With a sincere intention of arranging

the money for her fees he took defendant No.1 to State

Bank of India branch at Davanagere and requested the

officer regarding granting loan to her for her education.

 11 O.S.No.15/2014

He offered to stand as a guarantor. Since his son was

working in Manipal, the bank official informed them

that the loan could be secured from State Bank of

India, manipal. This proposal was totally unacceptable

to them and they insisted his son paying the fees as

according to defendant No.3, it was duty of the

husband to finance the wife's education. His son

expressed his helplessness and from then onwards the

relationship started souring. She has voluntarily gone

to her parental house in Davanagere to complete her

M.S on 14th April 2010 and thereafter she has not

returned. She was insisting her son to cut off relations

with his parents and stay in maternal house as mane

aliya and practice in Davanagere. Since his son didn't

agree to this proposal, all the defendants conspired and

joined together and spread false and defamatory

matters against him, his wife and his son.

That on 14.09.2012 the defendant No.1 lodged a false

police complaint at Pandeshwara Police Station,

Mangalore alleging that his son has harassed her in

 12 O.S.No.15/2014

the hostel of Father Muller's Medical College,

Mangalore repeatedly and issued death threats. She

made false accusation in the Pandeshwara Police

Station that his son and his parents harassed and

threatened her for dowry. In the written complaint

dated 14.09.2012, the defendant No.1 had made total

false and defamatory allegation against him, his wife

and son that himself, his wife and son subjected her

physical and mental torture and rendered her life very

miserable and she has also further made false

allegation that they made unlawful demand and threw

her out of the house. Later the police called to the land

line No.0820-2544081 at about 3.30 p.m and informed

them to immediately report to the police station. In the

police station the defendant No.1 Ranjeetha repeatedly

alleged that his son, his wife and himself have tortured

her and that they have harassed her demanding dowry;

and such false allegations were made in the presence of

himself, his wife and his son and also persons who

accompanied us to police station viz Mr.Devendra

 13 O.S.No.15/2014

Prabhu, Mr.Panduranga Nayak of Manipal, Dr.Sudhir

Prabhu and Mrs.Sudha Prabhu of Mangalore. Along

with the defendant No.1, her parents the defendant

No.2 and 3 also appeared at the time of enquiry in the

Pandeshwara Police Station on 14.09.2012 and they

also made defamatory allegations against him, his wife

and son that they received dowry; that they demanded

more dowry; that they tortured Ranjeetha, demanding

more dowry; that they drove her out of the house; that

they subjected her to cruelty, etc. The fact that they

were summoned to the Police Station in Mangalore and

that they were questioned by the Police and that there

was a complaint of dowry alleged against them by

defendant No.1 along with her parents in the

Pandeshwara police Station, Mangalore spread like

wild fire among their relatives and well-wishers, and

thereby, they suffered mental shock and social

indignation. The very fact of attending the Police

Station as an accused to answer the charges of dowry

and cruelty on the daughter-in-law is highly outrages

 14 O.S.No.15/2014

to his character and reputation. The plaintiff

underwent tremendous mental agony and suffering.

The plaintiff had several thousands of relatives and

well-wishers in Mangalore and he was very much well

known in Mangalore since several lakhs of persons of

their community live in Mangalore, Kasaragod and

Udupi Districts where he was very well known. His

relatives and general public started entertaining doubt

about his character as criminal complaint was lodged

against him by his daughter-in-law with the Police and

that he was summoned to the Police Station by the

Police and questioned by the Police. The plaintiff felt

very much shame by these false accusations. The

plaintiff had to leave for Raichur to attend the

Karnataka State Level Conference of the Research

Society of Study of Diabetes in India and participate in

the Debate on the modern Management of Diabetes on

15th & 16th September 2012. The plaintiff had to cancel

the trip and rush to Mangalore Pandeshwara Police

Station along with his son Dr.Gurukanth Rao and his

 15 O.S.No.15/2014

wife Mrs.Geetha R. Rao. All of them underwent

tremendous mental agony and police closed the case

after they found out the complaint was completely

false. However false complaint prevented them from

taking part in scientific proceedings gravely affecting

his academic performance. Many people came to know

that they were called to police station for alleged dowry

harassment case. The plaintiff was shocked and

defamed by these false and baseless allegations.

Further it is submitted that being sadist to the core

who found pleasure in tormenting and harassing them,

they lodged a completely false and concocted attempt

to murder case against them as per Cr.No.502/2012 of

Women's P.S Davanagere falling within the limits of

JMFC Court, Davanagere alleging that his son Dr.

Gurukanth Rao, his wife Mrs.Geetha Rao and himself

went to her house on 28.10.2012 at 7.30 p.m in the

evening and that they abused her etc. In addition to it

was alleged that his son Dr.Gurukanth threw a knife at

her which missed defendant No.1 and hit to the wall.

 16 O.S.No.15/2014

The defendant No.1 filed the said false complaint to

court and got it referred to police. The defendant No.1

joined with other defendants who agreed to testify as

eye witnesses to her false version. The defendants

deliberately gave false statements to police that plaintiff

committed cruelty, dowry harassment, torture, attempt

to murder etc. In her complaint dated 21.11.2012,

defendant No.1 has made totally false, malicious and

scandalous allegations include:- The attitude of the

accused persons was so unnatural when questioned by

the complainant, they responded in a very rude manner

and said that the low quantum money spent on the

marriage including negligible dowry was not compatible

to their status, it should have been five times more than

the amount spent. They abused the complainant in filthy

words by calling her with that words. It is disturbing to

state that the complainant was kept in captivity as the

doors of the bedroom was locked from out and food was

supplied once in a day in par with prisoners, who are

lodged in Jail. Further it is stated in the complaint that

 17 O.S.No.15/2014

These accused persons repeatedly forced her to

discontinue her post graduation studies and remain as a

domestic help so as to serve aged A.2 & A.3. She also

alleges that There was harassment for dowry demand

and that she was driven out from the matrimonial

home.

Further it is submitted that in Para 4 of the complaint,

she alleges that Rs.1 lakh was given as dowry to A.1

at the constant demand made by his parent. She

alleges that Accused have abused the religious

customs by sheer money greed. She further alleges

that Accused persons drove her out of the house by

illegally retaining her costly gold jewels and other

articles worth lakhs and bare footed and empty hands

she came to Davanagere. Further she alleges that she

was repeatedly slapped by A.1 to A.3 and that

Accused No.1 beat her with his pant, belt and boots.

She was alleged that Accused No.2 has forcibly kept

her jewels in her custody.

 18 O.S.No.15/2014

Further it is submitted that the truth is that defendant

No.1 stayed only for 10 days in their house and she

was looked after very well with all love and affections.

She went to Davanagere on 14.04.2010 pursuing her

studies and thereafter she was not returned. All the

above allegations that there was dowry demand; that

she was harassed for dowry;. That she was abused,

beaten her, etc., are totally false. The plaintiff and his

family are respectable persons and they are very

religious persons. They treated her as their own

daughter. She was never illtreated her in any manner.

The plaintiff and his wife have themselves built a

temple called Shree.Gopalakrishna Temple in

Neeleshwar, Kasargod District. They are highly

religious and they hail from a very respectable family.

They respect their Hindu culture, values and tradition.

They are highly respected in G.S.B Community and

also by the general public. While returning from their

house, she has taken all the gold ornaments gifted by

them to her. Her allegations that Accused No.2 forcibly

 19 O.S.No.15/2014

kept her jewels and that she was driven out of the

house, etc., are false baseless and highly derogatory.

Further it is submitted that in order to extort money

from them and to subject himself and his family to

harassment and torture by the Police, the defendant

No.1 fabricated false story and got filed the above false

criminal case, with the active connivance and support

of all other defendants. She has made false, baseless

and reckless allegations against him, his wife and son.

Further it is submitted that in para 6 of the complaint,

she has made highly offending and false allegations

that the plaintiff, his wife and son went to her parents

house in Davanagere on 28.10.2012 and at about 7.30

p.m. all of a sudden A.1 trespassed to her house and

threw a knife at her after pointing towards her, but it

missed the aim and hit the wall, had the knife been hit

at the correct aim, i.e., chest of her, she would have

died on the spot, his parents were standing behind A.1

who had abated him to commit the crime. The accused

persons after this incident in the H.No.3308/1G in

 20 O.S.No.15/2014

Davanagere escaped fearing trouble at the instance of

Police.

Further it is submitted that based on these allegations,

the defendant No.1 has lodged complaint regarding

attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 of

IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life and

offence is non-bailable and triable by Sessions Judge.

Attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 of

IPC is a very heinous offence and if arrested accused

would be thrust to prison. With a malicious and

criminal intention of somehow getting himself, his wife

and son arrested and being thrust to prison. The

defendant No.1 along with her parents and other close

associates, viz., the defendant No.4 to 6 hatched the

conspiracy and concocted the above false story.

Further it is submitted that if such false complaint is

filed to the Police, the Police may not have entertained

such false complaint, and therefore, the defendant

No.1 filed false complaint directly to the Court and got

it referred to the Police for investigation under Section

 21 O.S.No.15/2014

156(3) of Cr.P.C., and consequently, F.I.R came to be

registered in Crime No.61/2012 of Women Police

Station, Davangere, and all the defendants joined

hands together and got the said false and defamatory

matters published in the newspaper. The defendant

No.1 and her parents have met their relatives in Udupi

District and Mangalore District and told with them that

they have demanded dowry and received dowry, and

that they have harassed Ranjeetha, demanding

additional dowry and they have also repeated the above

false and baseless allegations with their relatives. They

have attended the public functions in Mangalore and

Udupi and repeatedly told the same allegations with

our relatives and well-wishers and thereby damaged

our reputation.

If is further submitted that when these false allegations

made the plaintiff was in Manipal at that time. The

plaintiff had not gone to Davanagere at all on that day

which takes six hours journey by car from Manipal. In

fact on 28.10.2012, his son Dr.Gurukanth Rao was on

 22 O.S.No.15/2014

duty in Manipal. He was working as on call duty

consultant in Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. On that day

in the noon the plaintiff had attended the marriage of

his hospital staff Kum.Nagaveni in Kundapur, Udupi

District and his photo was taken at the time of wishing

the couple. Furthermore, he was in K.M.C. Hospital,

Manipal, attending his duty in the morning and also in

the evening. The plaintiff had attended a serious

patient Mrs.Eliza in ICU of KMC Hospital in Manipal at

6.30 p.m. The hospital record pertaining to the patients

attended by him between 6.30 p.m., and 6.45 p.m., on

28.10.2012 is produced herewith. His personal mobile

would always be with him only and its call details also

confirm that he was in Manipal and Kundapur on that

day. All these details have been investigated and

collected by the police and found to be true. The wife of

the plaintiff was in Sri.Gopalakrishna Temple in

Nileshwar, Kasargod District in Kerala State on that

day which is at a distance of more than 400 kms from

Davanagere.
 23 O.S.No.15/2014

Further it is submitted that they had not gone to

Davanagere on that day at all. All the defendants have

conspired together and concocted a false story that

they went there to Davanagere and committed the

offences with the malicious intention of harassing them

and to destroy their name in society. The defendants

fabricated false stories in the form of their statements

and published those false stories to the police and the

public and the press with the malicious intention to get

arrested and thrust to prison on the basis of the false

complaint. The defendants repeated the false and

defamatory allegations against them with the Police

also. The defendant No.1 to 3 have repeated the

allegations of dowry, demand of dowry, torture and

about the attempt to murder on 28.10.2012 by them

with the Police. The defendant No.4 also deliberately

submitted false statement before the Police regarding

dowry demand by them. She has also given utter false

statement to the Police that in her presence, there was

an attempt to commit murder on the life of defendant

 24 O.S.No.15/2014

No.1 by the plaintiff, his wife and son on 28.10.2012.

The defendant No.6 states that she is a patient of

defendant No.1 Dr.Ranjeetha Shenoy and she has

given false evidence that she saw the three accused

persons coming to the house of the complainant on

28.10.2012 and assaulting her at 7.30 p.m., by holding

out threat.

Further it is submitted that the wife of the plaintiff had

appeared before the investigating officer attached to

Davanagere police station on 02.12.2012 in connection

with the above case and have narrated all the true

facts and have submitted a letter also. The

Investigating Officer has also questioned and recorded

the statement of Sri.Sooryanarayan Kamath (Maternal

uncle of Defendant No.1), Mr.Gopinath Shenoy

(Maternal uncle of defendant No.1), Mrs.Shyamala

Nayak, (Maternal Aunt of defendant No.1), Mr.

Madhava Prabhu (mediator for the marriage) and his

neighbor Dr.Veena Kamath in the presence of his wife

and himself in the Police Station on that day. All these

 25 O.S.No.15/2014

persons have clearly stated that the allegations made

in the complaints are completely false. The police have

concluded that the allegations made in the complaint

are false. But all the defendants continuously

pressurized the Police not to conduct fair investigation

and they also told utter falsehood against them. The

defendants misused the police to proceed with the false

criminal case against them. The defendants No.2 to 6

lent their names as witnesses to the false case of

Defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 to 6 also gave

totally false version against them with the police that

they have subjected the defendant No.1 to atrocities,

knowing fully well that they are innocent.

Further it is submitted that from the time of filing false

criminal case of attempt to murder in JMFC Court

Davanagere till they obtained copy of B report which

proved them completely innocent. They suffered from

tremendous mental tension. The plaintiff was suffered

loss of respect in the society, loss of reputation and

found it extremely difficult to cope up with his daily

 26 O.S.No.15/2014

routine where he had to battle for the life of his

patients who are referred to him by Doctors from

Kerala, Karnataka and Goa and many of them being

critically ill. They had to engage a lawyer and

repeatedly plead with the police their complete

innocence and obtain a copy of the B report. Through

out this period the defendant No.1 and her parents

defendant No.2 and 3 were influencing the police not to

conduct honest enquiry. The enquiring police team also

came to his department on many occasions repeatedly

asking him to produce various documents to prove that

we were not in Davanagere on the day of alleged

attempt to murder of the defendant No.1 on

28.10.2012. The plaintiff had to face taunting

questions and suspicious looks from his hospital staff

this caused tremendous mental agony and loss of

respect in his working place and society.

Further it is submitted that knowing fully well that

those allegations are false, all the defendants joined

hands together and lodged a false complaint with the

 27 O.S.No.15/2014

Police and published them to press. In order to defame

the plaintiff and his family, the defendants also got the

above defamatory matter published in Vijaya

Karnataka, Kannada daily news paper dated

25.11.2012 which has vide circulation throughout

Karnataka including Mangalore and Udupi Districts. It

is published in the paper that they have harassed,

threatened, attempted to murder Ranjitha and

demanded dowry along with his son and his wife.

Hundred of people have enquired with him about the

same. After reading the said publication, many of his

relatives, friends, patients and his colleagues have

enquired with him and started looking down upon him

like a villain as if the plaintiff have committed atrocities

on his daughter-in-law the defendant No.1. The

plaintiff was very much shocked and ashamed by

publication of such defamatory matters. The

allegations in the complaint and the publication are per

se defamatory. The plaintiff is totally innocent and he

had not committed any offence whatsoever. All the

 28 O.S.No.15/2014

allegations made against him are false and baseless.

On reading the news item, he suffered tremendous

shock and suffering. Even now he is suffering.

Further it is submitted that in order to somehow

misuse the process of justice and cause loss and

trouble to the plaintiff and his family, all the

defendants have joined hands together and lodged the

complaint in the name of defendant No.1. The

defendants No.2 to 6 deliberately gave false statement

before the Police during the course of investigation and

they also repeated such false allegations against them

with the general public and they were cited as

witnesses to the alleged offence of atrocities alleged to

have been committed by them on defendant No.1

knowing fully well that the allegations made by

defendant No.1 are totally false and concocted. The

defendants No.2 to 6 conspired with her and

volunteered themselves to be false witnesses to support

the false case of defendant No.1.

 29 O.S.No.15/2014

Further it is submitted that from the time of filing false

criminal case of attempt to murder in JMFC Court

Davangere till obtaining the copy of B report which

proved them completely innocent they have suffered

tremendous mental tension, loss of respect in the

society and found it extremely difficult to cope up with

his daily routine where he had to battle for the life of

his patients who are referred to him by Doctors from

Kerala, Karnataka and Goa and many of them being

critically ill. The defendants with the sole aim of

tarnishing the image and ruining his career gave wide

publicity to the false complaint by getting this same

published in Karnataka's most widely circulated

Kannada daily newspaper Vijaya Karnataka dated

25.11.2012. Their agony of attending the Police Station

as the Accused to be looked into.

Further it is submitted that on the early morning of

28.11.2012 at about 6 a.m when the plaintiff was busy

correcting the Ph.D thesis of his Ph.D candidate Mrs.

Leelavathi Acharya, Defendant No.2, Mr.Rathnakar

 30 O.S.No.15/2014

Shenoy trespassed into their house in Parkala

accompanied by 2 persons and another person falsely

claiming to be a plain cloth policeman, viz. defendant

No.2 and 5. The defendant No.5 ransacked his house

in Maruthi Nagar, Parkala in Udupi district looking for

his son Dr.Gurukanth Rao and demanding his

passport and the passports of his wife and himself.

The defendant No.2 misbehaved with their servant Mrs.

Kishori threatening her to reveal the whereabouts of

Dr.Gurukanth Rao. They were extremely rude them as

they were completely under the influence of defendant

No.2. They did not even allow them to use toilet

facilities in their own house and wanted them to

immediately come with them to Davangere Police

Station. The plaintiff requested them to give a day's

time as he had to make arrangements for the treatment

of critically ill patients admitted under him at Kasturba

Hospital at Manipal. The police were completely crude

and rude inspite of his repeated pleas as they were

completely under the influence of defendant No.1 and

 31 O.S.No.15/2014

2. They turned a blind eye because of his photograph

in B report submitted by the Police Circle Inspector

where he is a false witness to an act of attempted

murder on 28.10.2012, which never happened.

Photograph of the room ransacked by defendant No.2

and his goonda the defendant No.5. They threatened to

drag them to Davangere Police Station like criminals

even though they were 100% innocent. This way

defendant No.1, her father tortured them mentally,

literally prevented them from doing his Academic work

as well as tried to prevent him from performing duty to

his patients which could have resulted in death of

many of them.

Further it is submitted that after this unpleasant event

their whole family was so mentally traumatized and

shattered that they could hardly come to term with

their life. The aged parents in law Mr.Purushotham

Prabhu aged 91 years and Mrs.Mohini Prabhu aged 86

years who are staying with them as dependants

parents would hardly speak to any one or eat anything

 32 O.S.No.15/2014

as they were completely shattered and dumbfounded.

This was so because defendant No.2 direct elder

brother is the son in law of Purushotham Prabhu's

elder brother late Shri Narasimha Prabhu.

Further it is submitted that they also had to face the

humiliation of answering the taunting questions from

their neighbours about the reason for the police visit to

their house at the behest of defendant No.2. The wife of

the plaintiff felt so disgraced that she went into

depression with suicidal ideation and had to be treated

by Dr.P.V.Bhandary well known psychiatrist of Udupi.

They could not bear the stress anymore and as it was

grossly interfering with his duty as a doctor, teacher

and a researcher.

That on 1st December 2012, they hired a tempo traveler

and traveled to Davangere leaving Parkala at 2 p.m.

and reached Davangere at 10.30 p.m. On next day

morning they met the police officers and requested for

impartial enquiry. They have appeared before the Circle

Inspector Mr.Chandrahas Laxman Naik in the

 33 O.S.No.15/2014

afternoon by 3.00p.m and from 5.00 p.m to 9.30 p.m

they gave him answers to all his grueling questions.

Only after recording their statements with proof

provided and the statements by defendant No.1

maternal uncles Mr.Suryanaranaya Kamath and Mr.

Gopinath Kamath, Mr.Madhav Prabhu and Mrs.

Shyamala Nayak the material aunt of defendant No.1

and Dr.Veena Kamath, Professor at KMC and their

neighbor that they were innocent allowed to leave the

police station. Never in the life of the plaintiff he had

spent a whole day in a police station as an accused like

this earlier he suffered a lot with the fear that he would

be arrested and thrust to prison on false charges. The

defendants were pressurizing the police to arrest them

on the basis of their false accusations.

All the allegations made against him are proved to

be false and Police filed B final report before the B

final report before the JMFC II court. The police have

collected all relevant materials collected by the

Investigating Officer to prove that the allegations made

 34 O.S.No.15/2014

against him are false. The plaintiff was totally defamed

by these false allegations published by the defendants

in Vijaya Karnatak Kannada daily dated 25th November

2012. They have given false statement to his relatives

and friends in Udupi and Mangalore and repeated

those false allegations. The defendant No.2 during his

visit to Manipal on 23rd June 2010 told Shri.Madhav

Prabhu and Shri.Devendra Prabhu of Manipal that his

son Dr.Gurkanth Rao and himself had subjected him

to unnecessary cardiac surgery. He also told that he

would use the dowry and domestic violence act to get

his son, his wife and himself arrested under this act.

During their visit to the house of Mrs.Shyamala Nayak

of Bailoor village Karkala on 26th November 2010, the

defendant No.3 was advised by Shyamala Nayak to

amicable settle the marriage problem between his son

and her daughter-in-law. She replied that the only way

to save the marriage was either his son cuts off his

relation with his parents and stays in her house as

Mane Aliya or she will use domestic violence and dowry

 35 O.S.No.15/2014

prevention act to extract One Crore rupees from him.

Further she and her husband informed Mrs.Shyamala

Nayak and her husband Mr.Sadashiva Nayak that the

defendant No.2 her husband was subjected to

unwanted surgery by them.

Further it is submitted that when he and his wife went

to invite Dr.Ranjeetha on June 30, 2010, his wife and

he was insulted by defendant No.2 and 3, and

defendant No.1 in the presence of Mr. Shanker Prabhu

and in the presence of Mr. Nayampalli Raghuveer

Acharya of Udupi. The defendant No.2 and 3 told Mr.

Acharya that his son, his wife and himself have

tortured his daughter and defendant No.2 was

subjected to unwanted surgery. They also reiterated

that only way to save the marriage between his son and

their daughter was his son should cut off his relation

with his parents and stay in their house as Mane

Aliya. The plaintiff had suffered mental harassment,

financial loss, social indignation and loss of reputation

on account of these false allegations made against him

 36 O.S.No.15/2014

by defendant No.1 in conniving with other defendants.

It has badly affected his personal, social standing,

profession, his health and future.

Further it is submitted that the defendant No.1 Dr.

Ranjeetha and Defendant No.2 and 3 her parents never

allowed them to live in peace and carry on with his life

as an Academician. The defendants have destroyed

many of the joint Research projects that he was

planning to undertake with his help in the Department

of Medicine. The false complaint against Dr.

Gurukanth in Pandeshwar Police Station on

14.09.2012 prevented him from participating in annual

conference of Karnataka State Research Society for the

study of Diabetes in India in September 15th, 16th at

Raichur. The plaintiff had gone to Pune for

Hypertension conclave held on 24 and 25 November

2012 where 500 specialist Physicians from all over

India participated in the various sessions on

Hypertension treatment and he was a member of the

panel of experts on a session of Question and

 37 O.S.No.15/2014

Answers Just before the start of the session he

received several calls from Mangalore about the news

in Vijaya Karnataka about his family and himself being

involved in a case of attempt to murder his daughter in

law Dr. Ranjeetha in Davangere and filing of the case

in JMFC Court, Davanagere. The plaintiff was shocked

and dumbfounded. The plaintiff feared about the safety

of his wife in Parkala and fear of being arrested on

arrival in Parkala. With great effort he finished my

session rushed back to Parkala by the next available

flight from Pune. A threatening call was made from

mobile number 09481144260 on 31st January 2013 at

around 8 am to Dr.N.R.Rau's landline No.

08202544081 from a lady informing them that

defendant No.2 Mr.Ratnakar Shenoy was hiring

underworld goondas to finish their family and that he

was planning to bring Mahila Morcha Volunteers and

electronic media to demonstrate in front of their house

for their character assassination. In this regard, his

younger son Dr.Karthik Rao who received the call has

 38 O.S.No.15/2014

also lodged complaint to the Police Station at Manipal

on 31.01.2013 Complaint number 30 PTN/MPL 2013.

The plaintiff had gone with his wife Mrs.Geetha Rau to

take part in the National conference of the association

of the physicians of India and deliver a prestigious

lecture to the gathering of nearly 10,000 physicians

from all parts of India and abroad on practical

guidelines in the management of hypertension. They

had to rush back to their house in Parkala by taxi and

train tickets were available at short notice arranged by

Pharmaceutical company Dr.Reddy's laboratory

constantly worrying about their fate and threat to their

life and the fate of their younger son Dr.Karthik Rao.

They now know that the number belongs to defendant

No.4 who was a false eye witness in the completely

concocted and false attempt to murder case on

28.10.2012.

Further it is submitted that on December 4th 2012 the

plaintiff had to make a presentation before the Indian

Council of Medical Research for a grant of several

 39 O.S.No.15/2014

Lakhs of Rupees for his research project A

randomized, double blind, multicentric, placebo

controlled phase II, study assessing the safety, efficacy

of intravenous ex-vivocultured adult allogenic

mesenchymal stem cells in patients with type 2

Diabetes Mellitus. As plaintiff had to be in Davangere

Police Station on December 5th 2012, the plaintiff had

to cancel the trip in the last minute. All the

arrangements for his travel to Delhi and back by Air

and stay at New Delhi were made by the sponsors of

the project Stempeutics. The plaintiff is now totally

shattered after this and unable to concentrate in his

research. Because of his repeated visits to police for

interrogation, enquiry etc. and for approaching courts

and to go to advocates office for consultation regarding

defending the false cases registered against them. The

plaintiff had to stay away from his medical practice in

pay clinic out patients as well as in patients on several

occasions resulting in loss of professional income of

around Rs.12 lakhs. In addition, the plaintiff had to

 40 O.S.No.15/2014

refuse the offer of examinership in many prestigious

universities and guest lectures in several conferences

at national and international level, thus severely

affecting his standing in his profession. The plaintiff

had wasted several months of his useful time in

preparing documents collecting certificate,

photographs, vouchers etc. to prove their innocence.

The defendant No.1 and her parents with the other

defendants have willfully and totally abused the law for

extorting money from them and to put them to

sufferance. They have done their best to tarnish his

image and that of their family in public life by

launching malicious prosecution, publishing

defamatory statements, issuing death threats of hiring

goons of underworld and threatening to bring hired

volunteers and paid media to demonstrate in front of

their house by anonymous call made by their friend the

defendant No.4 (mobile No.09481144260) who is a

false witness in the attempt to murder case. They have

 41 O.S.No.15/2014

put their lives and day to day living under constant

threats.

Further it is submitted that the defendant No.1 and

her parents are such a mental wreck that he had to

leave the country to escape torture and harassment

meted out by them. He had to be treated for depression

by Dr.P.V.Bhandary the well known physchiatrist of

Udupi. Because of all this the plaintiff had suffered

unbearably at this advanced age and it has badly

affected his health, happiness, well being and life

expectancy also.

Further it is submitted that FALSE PROPAGANDA BY

DEFENDANT NO.2 CASTING ASPERSIONS ON THEIR

PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY AND MEDICAL ETHICS.

During his visit to Davangere in November December

2009, his son Dr.Gurukanth Rao diagnosed his would

be father in law the defendant No.2 had suffered a

massive heart attach in the recent past. He

immediately advised him to come to Manipal to consult

Dr.Ranjan Shetty, Cardiologist at Kasturba Hospital,

 42 O.S.No.15/2014

Manipal and he had advised the defendant No.2

absolute necessity of performing coronary artery by

pass surgery as his heart disease was quite critical.

Immediately he sought an appointment with well

known cardiac surgeon Dr.Jawali of Wokhardt

Hospital, Bangalore for Mr.Ratnakar Shenoys surgery.

In January 2010, the plaintiff and his wife, son

traveled to Bangalore to wish him good luck for surgery

and meet his student Dr.Paul who was a member of

the cardiac surgery team looking after the defendant

No.2. The Dr.Gurukanth personally donated blood for

transfusion during the surgery of defendant No.2 and

stayed there to look after his wellbeing. While before

marriage of his daughter the defendant No.2

immensely thanked him and his son Dr. Gurukanth for

saving his life, shortly after the marriage, he willfully

spread a canard with everyone he met in Udupi,

Karkala and Mangalore with his relative, friends and

public that his son and he had subjected him to

unwanted surgery. He indulged in character

 43 O.S.No.15/2014

assassination of his son and himself questioning their

medical ethics and personal integrity. This way he had

done irreparable damage to their reputation and

standing in medical profession.

Further it is submitted that a qualified surgeon the

defendant No.1 who is under Hippocratic oath to heal

the sick has unfortunately totally and completely

abused and misused the dowry prevention and

domestic violence act for her hidden agenda for

monetary gains. She tortured her husband Dr.

Gurukanth Rau her parents in law by filing completely

false criminal cases against them as proved in the B

report submitted by the circle inspector of Davangere.

The hands that are meant to heal the wounds of the

sick have instead not only inflicted deep wounds on her

husband and parents in law, but repeatedly rubbed

salt into the wounds by concocting completely false

stories. A person claiming to be single and unmarried

in her applications for appointments in various

hospitals demands at the same breath a sum of Rs.1

 44 O.S.No.15/2014

lakh per month as maintenance completely revealing

her hidden agenda of abusing the law for monetary

gains. The defendants are liable to pay damages for all

these tortuous acts as narrated above. Since all of

them have joined together and committed the series of

acts of threats, malicious prosecution, lodging false

petitions, publishing defamatory matters, ruining his

life harming his reputation etc., all of them are jointly

and severally liable to compensate him. All these

defendants, with the common object of winding his life

and harm his reputation, indulged in series of assault

on his character and social standing; and they spread

false and defamatory matters against them with the

general public, caused injury and suffering to him by

submitting false information to the Police and knowing

fully well that such false statement given by them to

the Police would result in his arrest and detention.

Their intention was to falsely implicate him false

charges of serious criminal offence and they succeeded

in falsely implicating him in serious offence of dowry

 45 O.S.No.15/2014

harassment and attempt to murder. All these

defendants caused harm in his personal and private

life. The plaintiff had spent sleepless nights with the

fear of threat to his life by the defendants and their

goondas and by the Police at their instance. The

plaintiff was suffered emotional, economic and

reputational injuries by the tortuous acts of the

defendants. The life of the plaintiff to live happily with

his family and right to carry on his profession and his

right to reputation have been unlawfully violated by the

different tortuous acts committed by the defendants on

him as morefully narrated above are intentional

directed to injure, damage and harm his personal life

and happiness, and defendants have caused misery,

agony, tension, distress, inconvenience, financial loss,

interference in my professional duty, and permanent

harm to his life and health. The defendants No.1 to 3

have employed the defendants 4 to 6 for executing their

tortuous act of harassing, injuring and damaging them.

The defendants No.4 to 6 have intentionally supported

 46 O.S.No.15/2014

defendants No.1 to 3 in assaulting his character and

also injuring his life. Hence all the defendants have

committed series of tortuous acts on him as aforesaid

and devastated his life. The suffering and damage is

immense and the same is continuing everyday. Though

plaintiff estimate the damage and compensation

payable at more than Rs. 0 crores, he limit the claim to

Rs.2 crores in this suit. The cause of action for the suit

arose on 14.09.2012 and within the jurisdiction of this

court. Hence this suit.

3. In response to the suit summons,

defendants No.1 to 3 have appeared through their

counsel and filed written statement. However the

defendants No.4 to 6 have not appeared before this

court even after service of summons on them and

hence they placed exparte through out the proceedings

of the suit.

4. The averments of the written statement are as

under :
 47 O.S.No.15/2014

The defendants have denied all the averments of

the plaint in total. The plaintiff and his family being

intelligent persons trapped the defendants by giving all

sorts of assurance to the defendants particularly to the

defendant No.1 convinced them that they are going to

take care about pursuing further studies. The

defendants by keeping faith in the assurance of the

plaintiff anticipating the better future celebrated the

marriage with grand manner and gave gold, silver and

diamond ornaments. After the marriage the plaintiff

along with his son and wife kept all the ornaments in

the locker and started to harass for one or the other

reason. The plaintiff obstructed the defendant No.1 in

continuing her further education. Further they used to

say that if the marriage of her son would have

celebrated with a rich family they would have get

crores of rupees including movable and immovable

properties. The arrogant act of dowry harassment went

in such a way the plaintiff and his family put forth the

demand of Innova car and a flat at Manipal and other

 48 O.S.No.15/2014

luxury items. The defendant No.1 shows her inability

but the plaintiff have snatched all her ornaments and

driven her from the house. Then the defendant No.1

had completed her studies with the help of her parents.

The husband of the defendant No.1 filed

M.C.No.137/11 before Udupi court for restitution of

conjugal rights and as there was life threat the

defendant No.1 managed to get transferred the case to

Davangere Family court by filing C.P.No.237/11 before

Honorable High court of Karnataka. Then this petition

was withdrawn and a petition for divorce was filed in

M.C.No.229/12 before Family court Mangalore. Again

the defendant No.1 got transferred this petition to

Family court Davangere by filing C.P.No.1/13 before

Honorable High court of Karnataka and it was

renumbered as M.C.No.211/13. Then the defendant

No.1 had filed case in Crl.Misc. No.428/11 claiming

maintenance but even after order the husband of the

defendant No.1 had not deposited the amount. Then an

order of attachment was issued to the vehicle bearing

 49 O.S.No.15/2014

No.KA-20 P 3838. The husband of the defendant No.1

with an intention to pay the maintenance amount had

transferred the vehicle in the name of one Srikantha

Rao. The plaintiff with an intention to escape form the

clutches of law filed W.P.No.20160/14 before

Honorable High court of Karnataka which clearly

indicates that the plaintiff and his family wants to

prefer one case or the other case against the

defendants. The defendant No.1 being a deserted wife

now working at Father muller hospital and the plaintiff

continues with the harassment. Hence in order to save

herself she had filed the complaint to the Pandeshwara

police but it was closed by issuing the NCR. Hence the

said complaint is neither false one nor defamatory in

nature. Even filing of the second complaint to get

justice is not a defamatory act as due to the unknown

political power the plaintiff managed to get the B

report. The defendants No.4 to 6 might have been the

witnesses at the time of the investigation and filing this

suit against them is not warranted. Filing of the

 50 O.S.No.15/2014

defamation case against the witnesses not only against

to the law but also against the investigated. The

allegations of causing loss, mental agony are all false

and not accepted by the defendants. The plaintiff and

his son managed to publish several defamatory articles

against the defendant No.1 and her family members by

uploading a website called dajiworld.com. After this

the reputation of the defendants was defamed. The

defendant No.1 was fed up with the attitude of the

plaintiff and his family and now she is preferring to

take action under cyber crime. The matter published in

the newspaper if they were to be defamatory against

anybody they have to take legal action against the

publisher and the reporter of the said newspaper. The

publishing of the news is no way concerned with the

defendant No.1. Hence there is no cause of action to

file this suit and prays to dismiss the suit.

5. To prove the case of the plaintiff has

examined himself as PW.1 and other four witnesses as

 51 O.S.No.15/2014

Pw.2 to 5 and relied upon 27 documents in his favour

and closed his side.

By way of rebuttal the defendants did not lead

rebuttal evidence.

6. Heard both sides

7. Based on the above pleadings this court on

20.01.2016 has framed the following

ISSUES

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the

defendants No.1 to 6 are jointly and
severally liable to pay 2 crores at the
rate of 18% p.a as compensation to
him for the false and defamatory
petition and to defame him ?

(2) Whether the defendants proves that

there is no cause of action to file this
suit ?

(3) What order or decree?

8. My answers to the above issues are as

follows:

Issue No.1 : In negative

Issue No.2 : In affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final orders
 52 O.S.No.15/2014

REASONS

9. Issues No.1 and 2 : These issues will be taken

at one stretch for my consideration as they emanated

from same set of facts and to avoid repetition of facts.

It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the

defendants have defamed him. Hence the present suit

is filed. Per contra, the defendants had denied the

entire allegation of the plaintiff. The burden is on the

plaintiff to prove the above said case. In order to prove

the plaintiff has got examined himself as PW.1 by

reiterating all the plaint averments in his affidavit.

Further in support of his case he had got examined

four other witnesses as Pw.2 to 4 by reiterating all the

averments of the plaint in their affidavits. It is true that

these witnesses were not cross examined by the

defendants side and even not lead rebuttal evidence.

Hence an adverse inference can be drawn against the

defendants. As per the settled principle of law when

there is no cross examination or rebuttal evidence then

the testimony of the witnesses have more value. But it

 53 O.S.No.15/2014

has to stand on its own legs and not on the weakness

of the defendant case.

10. Before going to discuss into the merits of the

case first we will know about the concept of the

defamation which falls under the tort law. It refers to

false statements about a person communicated as fact

to one or more other persons by an individual entity

such as person, newspaper, magazine, or political

organisation which caused damage and does harm to

the target reputation and or standing in the

community. There are two types of defamation like

slander and libel. The libel is defamatory statement or

pictures published in print or writing or broadcast in

the media. The publication does not need to be made to

more than one person to qualify as libel. It must be

represented as a fact, not an opinion. The oral

defamatory statements are slander. Damages for

slander are generally difficult to identify and prove

although when malice is involved. It can be easier to

accomplish. These statements must also be

 54 O.S.No.15/2014

represented as fact rather than just opinion. The

general harm caused by defamation is identified as

being ridicules, shamed, hated, scorned, belittled or

held in contempt by others, and lowers him in esteem

of a reasonably prudent person due to the

communication of the false statement. This tort can

result in a law suit for damages.

11. The plaintiff in order to prove his case had got

marked the certified copy of the police papers marked

as per Ex.P.1 to 25 i.e more particularly in

Cr.No.61/2012 before Davangere mahila police. On

perusal of these documents it is clear that there is a

case pending against the plaintiff and the defendants

and it arose out of family dispute. Still that case has

not reached finality. Further the Ex.P.26 and 27 are

the copy of the judgment and award in

M.C.No.211/2013 wherein the marriage of the son of

the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 was came to be

dissolved. So on perusal of these documents it is clear

 55 O.S.No.15/2014

that it will not help in deciding the present dispute

among the parties.

12. Further apart from the PW.1 the plaintiff

himself he had got examined other four witnesses as

per PW.2 to 5 who knew the plaintiff from past several

years and they have filed the affidavit by way of

examination-in-chief by supporting the averments of

the plaint in their affidavits. But eventhough there is

no cross examination or rebuttal evidence by the other

side how far the evidence of the PW.2 to 5 can be taken

against the defendants who seems that they are

deposing only to help the plaintiff and nothing more.

For the simple reason that there is no rebuttal evidence

the oral evidence of the Pw.2 to 5 cannot be accepted in

favour of the plaintiff. As every evidence has some

evidentiary value. The defamation means whoever by

words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs

or by visible representations makes or publishes any

article which really lowers the name of the plaintiff. On

perusal of the contents of the affidavit of the Pw.1 to 5

 56 O.S.No.15/2014

it is not so. Hence it can be termed as purely personal,

arising out of family dispute and falls with in the cases

pending in between the parties. Admittedly there

publication of the statements by both sides. Under

these circumstances how can the facts of the complaint

or the case can be termed as defamatory is not

explained by the plaintiff.

13. Further defamation per se refers to

defamatory statements that are so vicious and the

harm is so obvious, that malice is assumed. The proof

of intent is not required for general damage. However

there are some exceptions for the defamation like fair

comment, truth, statements made about a public

person. So if we apply the above exceptions to the facts

of the case then it is clear that as rightly pleaded by

the defendant No.1 in the written statement that she

cannot be held liable for the publication of the article

in the vijayavani newspaper. On perusal of the article it

is no where published that it was got published either

by the defendant No.1 or on her behalf. So for the case

 57 O.S.No.15/2014

of the plaintiff the libel would be applicable. Hence the

plaintiff cannot come under this and seek for damages.

Even the plaintiff has not included the publisher or the

reporter of the newspaper and even not verified

regarding the truth of it. Simply an article is got

published it does not mean that it was got published

by the defendant No1. It is not denied that there is no

good relationship in between the plaintiff and the

defendants. So for this reason the plaintiff only for the

reason he did not attend many of the conferences and

seminars did not mean that he had suffered loss only

by the act of the defendants. The plaintiff might have

voluntarily abstain himself from attending those out of

the pending disputes in between them.

14. So it is clear from the above that the plaintiff

has not made out a case and as rightly contended by

the defendant that there is no cause of action against

them. Simply pending of the case and publication of

the article in the newspaper does not mean that it had

lower the reputation of the plaintiff. No specific reason

 58 O.S.No.15/2014

assigned by the plaintiff as to why he had reduced the

claim for only two crores rupees. Simply got examining

the witnesses the plaintiff is not successful in

establishing that the act of the defendants lowers his

reputation in the eye of society. The plaintiff may be

very scholared and highly respectable person, but it

does not mean that the defendants are liable to pay the

damages for their no fault. Simply the defendants No.4

to 6 gave statement before the police does not lowers

the reputation of the plaintiff. Hence I answered the

issue No.1 in negative and issue No.2 in affirmative.

15. Issue No.3 : So from the above finding it is

clear that the plaintiff has not established his case and

hence he is not entitled for the damages as claimed by

him. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Suit is dismissed without

costs.
Parties are directed to bear
their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
 59 O.S.No.15/2014

(Directly dictated to the Stenographer on laptop,

print out taken by her, corrected, signed and then
pronounced by me in the open court on this 30th day of
August, 2016.)

(Shilpa K.S.)
III Additional Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC, Mangaluru,
D.K.

ANNEXURE

1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:

PW-1 : K.N.Rao
PW-2 : H.Shankarprabhu
PW-3 : B.Devendraprabhu
PW-4 : Pandurangnayak
PW-5 : Suvarnalatha

2. List of documents got marked on behalf of

plaintiff:

Ex.P.1 : Copy of mahzar

Ex.P.2 : Copy of sketch
Ex.P.3 : Photo
Ex.P.4 : Statement of defendant No.1
Ex.P.5 : Statement of Ratnakarshenoy
Ex.P.6 : Statement of Jamunarani
Ex.P.7 : Statement of veena
Ex.P.8 : Statement of Ratnamma
Ex.P.9 : Statement of M.S.Kamath
Ex.P.10 : Statement of Veenakamath
Ex.P.11 : Statement of M.Gopinath
Ex.P.12 : Statement of Suvarnalatha
 60 O.S.No.15/2014

Ex.P.13 : Photo
Ex.P.14 : Statement of Madhavaprabhu
Ex.P.15 : Statement of Mallappa
Ex.P.16 : Letter
Ex.P.17 : Statement of Sudhavidyasagar
Ex.P.18 : Statement of Valentine
Ex.P.19 : Copy of NCR
Ex.P.20 : Copy of complaint
Ex.P.21 : Copy of notice
Ex.P.22 : Statement of complainant
Ex.P.23 : Copy of private complaint
Ex.P.24 : Copy of chargesheet
Ex.P.25 : Paper publication
Ex.P.26 & 27 : Judgment and award in
M.C.No.111/13

3. List of witnesses examined and documents got

marked on behalf of defendants

-----NIL-----

30.08.2016
III Additional Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC,
Mangaluru, D.K.