Brahmanna Vs. Ramakrishnama and ors.

Brahmanna vs Ramakrishnama and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 20, 1894

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/788725

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/788725
Court: Chennai
Judge: Muttusami Ayyar and ;Best, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 20, 1894
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Defamation - Imputation on a wife--Suit by husband. - - 2. Suppose the wife brought an action against defendant, would it be a good defence to say that though she was the person slandered, it was intended only to insult her husband? Best, J. 3. Though most unwilling to disturb the decrees of the Courts below in th...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Brahmanna

Respondent

Ramakrishnama and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Daya v. Param Sukh I.L.R.
Reported In: (1895)ILR18Mad250

Excerpt

defamation - imputation on a wife--suit by husband. - - 2. suppose the wife brought an action against defendant, would it be a good defence to say that though she was the person slandered, it was intended only to insult her husband? best, j. 3. though most unwilling to disturb the decrees of the courts below in this case, i am constrained to come to the conclusion that the authorities cited leave us no option and that the plaintiff's suit must fail......near relations of the persons defamed. it is said that the defamer's object was to vilify the plaintiff. but the slanderous words spoken do not impute any personal misconduct to him. they do not state that the plaintiff knew of his wife's want of chastity, and with that knowledge lived with her. the language used is consistent with plaintiff's relief in his wife's chastity. the object was no doubt to cause intense pain of mind to the plaintiff, and to insult him in the heat of altercation, but it was part of that object to do it only by slandering his wife and children.2. suppose the wife brought an action against defendant, would it be a good defence to say that though she was the person slandered, it was intended only to insult her husband? if not, the rule that a slanderer should not be liable to as many actions as there are relations would be violated. i would follow the principle laid down in subbaiyar v. kristnaiyar i.l.r. 1 mad. 383; luckumsey rowji v. hurbun nursey i.l.r. 5 bom. 580 and daya v. param sukh i.l.r. 11 all. 104 setting aside the decrees of the lower courts, i dismiss the suit; but, under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs throughout.best, j.3. though most unwilling to disturb the decrees of the courts below in this case, i am constrained to come to the conclusion that the authorities cited leave us no option and that the plaintiff's suit must fail. i concur, therefore, in the decree proposed by my learned colleague.

Full Judgment

Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. I do not think that this is a case in which we should depart from the rule that it is the person who is slandered that ought to sue. The plaintiff's wife is sui juris and she may sue for the slander. No other person is permitted to sue, because however closely he may be related to the person slandered and whatever pain of mind he may suffer from the slander of his relation, the injury caused to him is mediate or remote and not immediate or proximate. If the rule were otherwise, the defamer might be liable for as many actions as there are near relations of the persons defamed. It is said that the defamer's object was to vilify the plaintiff. But the slanderous words spoken do not impute any personal misconduct to him. They do not state that the plaintiff knew of his wife's want of chastity, and with that knowledge lived with her. The language used is consistent with plaintiff's relief in his wife's chastity. The object was no doubt to cause intense pain of mind to the plaintiff, and to insult him in the heat of altercation, but it was part of that object to do it only by slandering his wife and children.

2. Suppose the wife brought an action against defendant, would it be a good defence to say that though she was the person slandered, it was intended only to insult her husband? If not, the rule that a slanderer should not be liable to as many actions as there are relations would be violated. I would follow the principle laid down in Subbaiyar v. Kristnaiyar I.L.R. 1 Mad. 383; Luckumsey Rowji v. Hurbun Nursey I.L.R. 5 Bom. 580 and Daya v. Param Sukh I.L.R. 11 All. 104 Setting aside the decrees of the lower Courts, I dismiss the suit; but, under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs throughout.

Best, J.

3. Though most unwilling to disturb the decrees of the Courts below in this case, I am constrained to come to the conclusion that the authorities cited leave us no option and that the plaintiff's suit must fail. I concur, therefore, in the decree proposed by my learned colleague.

Same Parties Brahmanna vs Ramakrishnama and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Muttusami Ayyar and ;Best, JJ.

Civil