- (1.) The appellant, Capt. Mahan Singh, has filed this appeal impugning the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, dated 29.10.2013, setting aside the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, 25.10.2011. The trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the appellant, seeking recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages from the respondent, Capt. Natha Singh. The first appellate court has, thereby, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.
(2.) The case set up by the appellant-plaintiff was that he has retired from the Indian Army as a Captain, is drawing pension of Rs.9500/- per month and earns Rs.50,000/- from agricultural land. He is also the recipient of a prize awarded by the Rampur Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., for getting the highest yield of good quality milk. In a litigation between him and his younger brother, Narinder Singh/Narinder Singhs' son Mohan Singh, regarding a piece of land stated to have been sold to him (appellant), the respondent herein (Capt. Natha Singh) appeared as a witness in a Revenue Court, against the present appellant and made the following statement:- "I do not know whether the sale proceeds of the land has been paid by Mahan Singh to Gajjan singh (volunteered) when he can retain the sale proceeds of Narinder Singh then how it could be said that he has paid the sale proceeds. At present the possession of the land covered by the sale deed in favour of Capt. Mahan Singh is with Mohan Singh son of Narinder Singh. Mahan Singh is residing in the Gurdwara in the village and takes the meals there in the Gurdwara. He has no son and he has brought up the son of his daughter. I do not know whether the said boy is getting education."
(3.) Thus, as per the appellant, the words used by the respondent in his testimony, with regard to the appellant residing in the Gurdwara and taking his meals also there, are derogatory and defamatory in nature, due to which the appellants' image has been lowered, in the eyes of people. It was also alleged in the plaint that the allegations were false, made only to disgrace and humiliate the appellant and to make a laughing stock out of him. He issued notice on 25.08.2005 to the defendant, seeking a written apology or payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of damages but the latter refused to do either.;