21LLB061

9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2021

BEFORE THE HON’ABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

-IN THE MATTER OF-

Mr. &Mrs. Iyer………………PETITIONER

V.

PAPPU UCHAKKA………….......RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER OF CIVIL SUIT FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1|Page
 9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS………………………………………………………3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………5

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………..6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………….7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………9

[ISSUE1]- Whether the lower court erred in granting damages

1.1 .NONFEASANCE
1.2 OMMISSION

[ISSUE-2]-Whether the suit of defamation on Pappu Uchakka is maintainable…………..10

1.1. The statement must be defamator1.2

1.2. The statement should be published to third party
1.3. Section 15,The Code of Civil Procedure,1908

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………11

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2|Page
9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
& And
Hon ‘ble Honourable
Pvt Private
Ltd Limited
v. Versus
SCC Supreme Court Cases

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

3|Page
 9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Katko v. Briney -183 N.W.2d 657(lowa Supreme Court 1971)

2.  Bird v. Holbrook, 130 Eng. Rep. 911 (C.P. 1825)
3. Jay Laxmi Salt Works(Pvt) Ltd v. State of Gujarat,1994 SCC
4. Ramdhara v. Phulwatibai,1967, HC of Madhya Pradesh
5. Capital and Countries Bank v. Henty & Sons,(1882) 7 A.C.741

BOOKS

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts 28th edition

2. Salmond & Heuston on the Law of Torts, R.E.V. Heuston & Buckley, 21st edition

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

4|Page
 9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel of behalf of the respondent submits the memorandum of the case under Section 9 and Section 96 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 19081 to the Hon ‘ble High Court of Kerala. The respondent humbly submits to this
jurisdiction.

1
Section 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that: The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have
jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature expecting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or implied barred.

5|Page
 9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Mr and Mrs Iyer and their son Ravi lived in Thrissur. Mr Iyer was a priest in the local temple and
Mrs Iyer was a school teacher. Mrs Iyer inherited an old farmhouse after the demise of her
grandmother. They left the farmhouse unoccupied and Mr Iyer boarded up and placed
“Trespassers will be prosecuted” signs around the property.

 The farmhouse was in poor condition and was subject to frequent burglaries and break-ins. So, in
order to defend the house against intruders and theft, Mr Iyer mounted an iron hammer above the
east bedroom door and it would whoever enters the room. He also set an alarm on the same
door’s bedroom.

 Pappu Uchakka was a notorious thief, infamous for burglaries and murders. One day he was run
from the police, Pappu Uchakka and his friend Tippu Paaketmar decided to enter into the house
in order to take refuge for the night. They found several antique show pieces and searched for
more such pieces. Pappu Uchakka and Tippu Paaketmar tripped the trigger mechanism and the
iron hammer fell on Pappu Uchakka, which resulted in serious injuries.

 The alarm went off Tippu Paaketmar scared and left Pappu Uchakka alone. Mr and Mrs Iyer
handed Pappu Uchakka to the police. Pappu Uchakka was hospitalised and he lost his eyesight.
When he woke up after two months, he claimed the damages which resulted in his injury and they
were granted by the lower court.

 After his recovery, Pappu Uchakka in the fit of rage started defaming Mr and Mrs Iyer that they
were into witchcraft. He found several bones and skeleton around the house. This caused an
irreparable damage to Mr and Mrs Iyer’s image.

 Mr and Mrs Iyer filed a suit of defamation against Pappu Uchakka, while challenging the
judgement of the lower court, in the High court of Kerala.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

6|Page
 9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE -1
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DAMAGES

ISSUE -2
WHETHER THE SUIT OF DEFAMAFAMTION ON PAPPU UCHAKKA IS MAINTINABLE

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

7|Page
 9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE -1]- Whether the lower court erred in granting the damages

It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble Court that the damages are granted on reasonable grounds because
Mr and Mrs Iyer are liable to carry out the repairs of the old farmhouse which was in poor condition. Even they
can protect their house by installing trigger mechanism such as alarm but placing an iron hammer which can
result in grievous injuries is not acceptable. In this case Pappu Uchakka lost his eyesight.

[ISSUE -2]- Whether the suit of defamation on Pappu Uchakka is maintainable

It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble Court that the suit of defamation on Pappu Uchakka is not
maintainable because the statement made by Pappu Uchakka does not fulfil the elements of defamation.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

8|Page
 9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[ISSUE -1]- Whether the lower court erred in granting damages

It is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble court that the damages granted to Pappu Uchakka are reasonable

1.1. NONFEASANCE
Nonfeasance is neglecting duty by not performing the act. In this case, the petitioner
failed to carry out the repairs of the old farmhouse which was in poor condition.

1.2. OMMISSION
Failure to do something is not an omission but a bad way of performing the act is
called omission. The petitioner would have knowledge that the iron hammer at a
distance from top of the door would definitely result in serious injuries which is
foreseeable damage to the person who enters the room; in spite of placing an alarm
there is no need to use an iron hammer. This is ordinary prudence that a reasonable
person would not have done [placing an iron hammer]

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

9|Page
 9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

[ISSUE-2]- WHETHER THE SUIT OF DEFAMATION ON PAPPU UCHAKKA IS MAINTAINABLE

It is submitted before the Hon ‘ble Court that the suit of defamation is not maintainable because it does not
fulfil the essential s of defamation.

1.1. The statement must be defamatory

The statements which are made by Pappu Uchakka are not considered as defamatory because it was not
clear that the statements should be interpreted by the right thinking members of the society to consider it as
defamation. It evident from the facts it caused irreplaceable damage but that the statements did not resulted
to feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem.

1.2. The statement must be published to a third party

The statements made by Pappu Uchakka refer to Mr & Mrs Iyer but it is not mentioned in the facts that
Pappu Uchakka told a third party merely statements refer to Mr & Mrs Iyer does not constitute defamation
but it also be known to some other persons.

1.3. Section 15, The Code of Civil Procedure,1908

Every suit shall be suited in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The petitioner can approach
the lowest court for defamation in order to save the valuable time of the High Court.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

10 | P a g e
 9th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of authorities cited, issues raised and arguments advanced, the respondent humbly
submits that the Hon ‘ble court may be pleased to declare:

1. The damages are granted on reasonable grounds

2. The suit of defamation on Pappu Uchakka is not maintainable

And pass any other order or direction, or relief that this Hon ‘ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice,
equity and good conscience, for which the petitioners shall be duty bound to obey.

All of which is humbly prayed

Counsel for the Respondent

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

11 | P a g e