Case Summary
Sivadasan, the plaintiff, alleges that the defendants, who are his relatives, spread false statements about him claiming he stole a temple idol. The case is for compensation for defamation due to the impact of these statements on his reputation.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence and the publication of the alleged defamatory article.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff could not satisfactorily prove that a defamatory article was published or circulated as claimed.
The plaintiff could not satisfactorily prove that a defamatory article was published or circulated as claimed.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff could not satisfactorily prove that a defamatory article was published or circulated as claimed.
The plaintiff could not satisfactorily prove that a defamatory article was published or circulated as claimed.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of the defamatory article as claimed by him and also its publication and circulation.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sivadasan
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Govindan
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jitheesh Lal
- Party Age
- 28
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Lawyer notice dated 05.01.2022, Undelivered cover, Letter issued to the Commissioner of Police Cyber cell Kozhikode on 11.08.2021, Complaint filed before Commissioner of Police Kozhikode City dated 10.04.2021.
Defendants Documents
Reply from RTI Act dated 10.08.2022.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Benny Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.K. Sreekanth
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Jishara V.R
- Appearance Type
- Government Pleader
- Law Firm
- legal aid
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Compensation for damages amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendants was sought.
Evidence:
The findings of this court to the issue No 1 and 2 would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the suit is to be dismissed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of lawyer notice related to the defamation case.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Undelivered cover
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Undelivered cover to defendant No. 1 related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Undelivered cover
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Undelivered cover to defendant No. 2 related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Letter issued to the Commissioner of Police Cyber cell regarding the defamation.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Complaint filed before the City Police Commissioner related to the defamatory statements.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Screenshot
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Screenshot of the allegedly defamatory material received from Govindan.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Expert Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Expert certificate verifying the screenshot.
Reference:
Ext.A6(a)
Document Type:
Expert Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Expert certificate related to the screenshot.
Reference:
Ext.A6(b)
Document Type:
Cash bill receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Cash bill receipt verified as part of the case.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Reply from RTI Act
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Response to RTI request related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Defamation
Case Code
Case between Sivadasan vs Govindan et al regarding defamation.
Case Code Year
Case between Sivadasan vs Govindan et al regarding defamation.