Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KARNARAJYA

IN THE MATTER OF:

_______________________________________________________________

Ms. Fatma D’Souza …Appellant

Versus

Ms. Anshika Mondal …Respondent

_______________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 1

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

No.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. SYNDIAN BOOKS AND LEGISLATION 5

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6-7

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-9

6. ISSUES RAISED 10

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12-16

9. PRAYER 17

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

AIR ALL INDIA RECORD

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

SEC. SECTION

& AND

II PARAGRAPH

ART. ARTICLE

ANR ANOTHER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 2

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

i.e. THAT IS

SSC SUPREME COURT CASES

SC SUPREME COURT

ORS. OTHERS

u/s UNDER SECTION

V. VERSES

UOI UNION OF INDIA

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

SR.NO CASES FOOTNOT

. E NO.

1 Rajveer aggarwal V Vijaykumar Diwakar & anr, 2011, Delhi High 15

Court.

2 Amar Bir Singh V Devinder Pal Singh, 2014,Delhi High Court. 15

3 Sh. Sanjay Chiripal V Sh. Tilak Raj Kapoor,2017, Delhi High 15

Court.

4 Mahip Singh V Dawan Singh,1888, Allahabad High Court. 16

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 3

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

5 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India,2016

TABLE OF CASES

SYNDIAN BOOKS

SR.NO. BOOKS

1 THE CONSTITUTION OF SYNDIA 1950- BY M.P.JAIN.

2 LAW OF TORTS – BY R.K.BANGIA

3 THE SYNDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872 –BY AVATAR SINGH

4 SYNDIAN PENAL CODE 1860/BHARATIYA NYAYA

SANHITA,2023 –BY J.D.MAYNE

LEGISLATION REFFERED
SR. LEGISLATION
NO.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 4

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

1 THE CONSTITUTION OF SYNDIA 1950.

2 SYNDIAN PENAL CODE 1860/BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA,2023

3 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908

LEGAL DATA BASE.

SR.NO ARTICLES AND WEBSITES

.

1 www.indiakannon.com

2 Https//blog.ipleaders.in

3 www.legalserviceindia.com

4 www.casemine.com

5 https//lawtrend.in

6 Https//scconline.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 5

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme court of Karnarajya has the jurisdiction in this matter.

Appeal from orders - In Civil Procedure Code 1908, Section 104 and order 43 deal
with appeal from orders. They state that certain orders are appealable.
Order – The formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree.
Or
And adjudication of a court which does not fall within a decree is an order.
Nature (section 104)
Appeal can be filed only against those orders which are appealable.
Order 43 Rule 1-A where any order is made against a party and the judgment is
pronounced there upon against such a party and decree is drawn up such party may is
an appeal against that decree contend that such a order should not have the made and
judgment have been pronounced.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 6

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

This memorandum sets forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on
which the claims are based in the instant case. The appellants affirm that they shall
accept any judgment of this Hon’ble courts as final and upon itself and shall execute
in it it’s entirely and in good faith.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Syndia is a country located in the southern part of the continent Basia. ‘Syndu’ is a
religion that originated in Syndia with majority of the individuals from this country practicing
the same. However, the land acted as an abode to various other religions as well.

2. Within Syndia, in the State of Karnarajya, there was a religious structure of the ‘Ajax’
religion. It was owned by a private trust and was situated in the city of Arjunpur. One of the
widely practiced customs of this religion was of animal sacrifice. As per the locals, on every
alternate day, a dog was sacrificed in the structure during the early hours of morning. In
certain cases, sacrifices were done as early as 4:00 am which in turn generated a lot of noise
with the wailing and squealing of the animal. This had disturbed a lot of Syndus who were
living in the periphery of the structure, who in turn had notified the head of the trust and a
prominent religious figure of the Ajax religion, Ms. Fatima D'Souza, regarding their
inconvenience. On 9th March 2019, in order to resolve the issue, the Syndu organisation
‘cruento’ which consisted of Syndu women led by Ms. Anshika Mondal entered the inner
sanctum of the structure in spite of being warned by the guards and stopped the ceremony
from proceeding. Ms. D'Souza sternly ordered the Syndu women to move out as it amounted
to violating and defiling their place of worship. As per the Ajax religion, no person belonging
to any other religion was allowed to enter the inner sanctum. If such an entry was done, it
would amount to defilement of the religious structure and would further require ‘Shuddhi-
karan’ (purification ceremonies) to reintroduce the religious structure for public use.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 7

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

3. The women enraged by Ms. D'Souza, gave some passionate interviews to a local media
outlet on the inconvenience caused by Ms D'Souza and her group. These interviews shortly
went viral with a lot of people claiming to have the same problem with the group in question.

4. Ms. D'Souza infuriated with this sudden shift of narrative, referred to Ms. Anshika Mondal
along with the Syndu women as “disgusting Syndu roaches being led by non-principled
swine masquerading as a leader” in her own interview to a media outlet. This statement
spread like wildfire throughout the country.

5. On the day of 25th March 2019, a large group of Syndu women gathered outside the
structure headed by Ms. D'Souza to protest against the statements made by her. In response to
this, a group of Ajax followers responded with intense sloganeering. Fearing a riot, the
Government sealed the structure temporarily.

6. On the subsequent day Ms. Mondal filed a case in the Arjunpur Civil Court against Ms.
D'Souza claiming that her right to reputation was tarnished by the vile statements made by
Ms. D'Souza. At the same time, Ms. D'Souza filed a plaint on the behalf of the trust alleging
that Ms. Mondal conspired with her followers and trespassed into their property defiling their
place of worship. She further claimed that in order to purify their place of worship, it would
require a Shuddhi-karan ceremony the cost of which should be borne by the Defendant. The
City Civil Court for the purpose of expeditious proceedings clubbed the two Plaints to be
heard together using its inherent powers. After hearing the arguments, the Hon’ble Arjunpur
City Civil Court held that Ms. D'Souza is liable to pay damages to Ms. Mondal and at the
same time, dismissed the Plaint filed by Ms. D'Souza on merit. Ms D'Souza appealed this
order in the High Court of Karnarajya,However the High court also dismissed the appeal.Ms
D'Souza moved to Supreme court of Syndia and appealed this order.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 8

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

ISSUES RAISED

THE RESPONDENT VERY RESPECTFULLY PUT BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH

COURT OF KARNARAJYA THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

[ ISSUE 1 ]
A] MS. MONDAL IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.D'SOUZA FOR THE
ALLEGED TORT OF TRESPASS.
[ISSUE 2 ]
B] MS. D'SOUZA IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.MONDAL FOR
COMMITTING DEFAMATION.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 9

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. MS. MONDAL IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.D'SOUZA FOR

THE ALLEGED TORT OF TRESPASS.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the present matter
ms. Mondal cannot be liable to pay damages to Ms.D'Souza for committing
trespass.

II. MS. D'SOUZA IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.MONDAL FOR

COMMITTING DEFAMATION.
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that, the ms. D'Souza is
liable to pay damages to ms. Mondal for the alleged tort of defamation.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 10

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. MS. MONDAL IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.D'SOUZA FOR

THE ALLEGED TORT OF TRESPASS.
1. It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the defendant are
not liable to pay damages to ms. D'Souza for the alleged tort of trespass.
2. One of the widely practiced customs of this ‘Ajax’ religion was of animal
sacrifices. As per the locals, on every alternate day a dog was sacrificed in the
structure during the early hours of morning. In certain cases, sacrifices were
done as early as 4:00 am which in turn generated a lot of noise with the
wailing and squealing of the animal. This had disturbed a lot of Syndus who
were living the periphery of the structure, who in turn had notified the head of
the trust but they not responding that’s why ms. Mondal and ‘Syndu’ women
entered in structure, only for public issue and with good intension so this is not
a trespass.
3. Meaning of interpretation of trespass: trespass can be said to be an action
exceeding the limit carved by the law. It is an intentionally directed,
unreasonable interference with ones person and property. The word ‘intention’
here implies committing the wrong voluntarily. Trespass allegation can be
leveled if the interference is with ones and third person’s body and private
property. It is to be kept in mind that intention from the essential component
of trespass. Unreasonable behavior is triggered by the mala fides and ulterior

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 11

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

intention to harass another in this matter the reason is clear to stop the
nuisance and disturb of the society in that periphery.
4. Defenses for trespass : public necessity –
The public necessity defense may be used when an individual intentionally
enters onto the land of another in order to protect the community. In order to
use this defense, there must have been to immediate and imperative need to
enter the land. A defendant cannot use this defense if their actions were
determined to be unreasonable under the circumstances.
5. An action will not amount to trespass if the defendant enters another’s
property to abate any public or private nuisance. Any public nuisance which
causes harm can be abated and it will not amount to trespass. The act of the
defendant must be reasonable for the purpose of abating a private nuisance. A
public officer who is authorized to abate public nuisance is privileged to enter
any person’s land for the same purpose at a reasonable time and manner.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 12

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

II. MS. D'SOUZA IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.MONDAL FOR

COMMITTING DEFAMATION.
1. It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the ms. D'Souza is
liable to pay damages to ms. Mondal for committing defamation. Because the
statement of ms. D'Souza – “disgusting Syndu roaches being led by non-
principled swine masquerading as a leader.” In her own interview to a media
outlet. This statement spread like wildfire throughout the country. And this
statement was insulting to ms. Mondal & ‘Syndu’ womens.
2. Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the
reputation of another he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an
interference with the property. A man’s reputation is his property, and if
possible, more valuable, than other property. Any intentional false
communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation;
decrease the respect, regard, or confidence in which person is held, or induces
disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person, is
called defamation.
3. Essentials of defamation – there are three main essentials of defamation.
a) The statement must be published : Defamation is the publication of a
statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking
members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid
that person.
b) The statement must refer to the plaintiff : If the person to whom the
statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred
to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.
c) Defamation must be published: Publication means making the defamatory
matter known to some person other than the person defamed and unless
that is done, no civil action for defamation lies.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 13

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

4. Case Laws:
1) Rajveer aggarwal V Vijaykumar Diwakar & anr.on 14 October 2011,
Delhi High Court.
The instant suit for compensation or damages for defamation and
permanent injunction has been filed compensation or damages for the
defamation caused to the plaintiff on account of the publication of a new
items.
2) Amar Bir Singh V Devinder Pal Singh, 2014,delhi High Court.
Defendant is liable to pay damages or compensation to the plaintiff on
account of defamation, which this court may deem…plaintiff, hence, the
present suit for compensation for defamation to the plaintiff.

3) Sh. Sanjay Chiripal V Sh. Tilak Raj Kapoor, on 17 July 2017, Delhi High
Court.
When on the face of the words must have clearly injured the reputation of
a plaintiff, they are actionable per se and plaintiff is entitled to get a
verdict for a substantial amount without giving evidence of actual
pecuniary loss.
“Directing the defendants to pay the damages for defamation as
compensation to the plaintiff to the amount of rupees four lack only to
measure compensation and to decide whether there has been actual
defamation.

1. Rajveer aggarwal V Vijaykumar Diwakar & anr

2. Amar Bir Singh V Devinder Pal Singh
3. Sh. Sanjay Chiripal V Sh. Tilak Raj Kapoor

4) Mahip Singh V Dawan Singh on 2 July 1888, Allahabad High Court.

The action & wording of the defendant in having used insulting
expression on the 10th May 1887.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 14

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

“ Recovery of rs.300, the compensation of pain to plaintiff soul &

defamation by which terms, understand that.”
5.Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India,2016, Supreme court.
The constitutional validity of criminal defamation was challenged by
Subramanian Swamy and others, who argued that it violated the freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
○ Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal
defamation, holding that the right to reputation is an integral part of the right
to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that a balance has to be struck
between the freedom of speech and the protection of reputation.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 15

 Law Center – II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

4.Mahip Singh V Dawan Singh

5. Subramanian Swamy V UOI

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITATIVE ADVANCED AND
AUTHORITIES CITED, MAY THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED
TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:

I. MS. MONDAL IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO

MS.D'SOUZA FOR THE ALLEGED TORT OF TRESPASS.
II. MS. D'SOUZA IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS.MONDAL
FOR COMMITTING DEFAMATION.

AND/OR

ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM

FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULY
SUBMITTED.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE RESPONDENT SHALL DUTY

BOUND FOREVER.

SD/-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE 16