The Bombay High Court, while hearing a defamation dispute between a brother and sister, stressed that siblings should learn to give up conflicts instead of resorting to litigation. The Court observed that such family disputes only clog the judicial system and destroy precious relationships.
In a defamation dispute between a brother and a sister, the Bombay High Court strongly reminded siblings that they should learn to give up disputes instead of dragging each other into prolonged litigation. The Court observed that family relationships, especially between siblings, should not be destroyed due to ego, greed, or material desires.
The matter came before the Bombay High Court in an appeal filed against an order of the Trial Court, which had refused to take the written statement of the defendant-sister on the ground of delay. The appeal was heard by a Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain.
While dealing with the case, the Court made deep emotional and social observations on the importance of the brother-sister relationship. Justice Jitendra Jain remarked,
“The relationship of a brother and sister is so noble and precious where one sibling will go any lengths to protect the other but in today’s day and age, this special bond is fraught with disputes, emotional tension or unresolved conflict. The root cause of this broken sibling relationship can be attributed to greed, ego and desire of a materialistic life than to crave for life with peace and harmony. Siblings should learn to give up than to give into litigation.”
The Court further expressed concern over the increasing tendency of family members to misuse the legal system for personal battles. It observed that the multiple proceedings initiated by the brother and sister were unnecessary and burdensome for the judiciary.
The Bench said that the various proceedings between themselves and more particularly the present proceedings are nothing but an attempt to clog the system and a counterblast against each other.
The Court added,
“This is one of the reasons why the Courts are unable to take up the matters which really deserves more attention”,
Advocate Ramprakash Pandey appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Arvind Taral represented the respondent.
Earlier, the High Court had attempted to resolve the dispute amicably. It directed both siblings to personally appear before the Court and give an undertaking that they would not use abusive language against each other, which was the main issue in the defamation suit.
The Court had also clarified that they were free to continue litigation related to their property disputes separately. However, the plaintiff-brother refused this suggestion and insisted on continuing with the defamation case. As a result, the Court had no option but to decide the appeal on merits.
The dispute arose out of property disagreements between the siblings over their parents’ assets. Over time, the hostility reached such an extreme level that the language used in the complaint by one party against the other was found to be highly objectionable. The brother filed a defamation suit against his sister.
The Trial Court held that the defendant-sister was aware of the proceedings, as an advocate had appeared on her behalf earlier. It relied on an affidavit of service and a bailiff’s report to conclude that the defendant had been duly served.
On this basis, the Trial Court held that the delay in filing the written statement could not be condoned and refused to take it on record. Aggrieved by this order, the sister approached the Bombay High Court.
While considering the appeal, the High Court made heartfelt observations on Indian culture and sibling bonds.
The Court observed,
“The facts of the present proceedings reminds this Court about two festivals of our country viz., “Raksha Bandhan” and “Bhaubeej”. The significance of these two festivals in our country is a reflection of the eternal bond between brothers and sisters, a heartfelt celebration of love, support, trust and protection between siblings. The reason why these festivals are celebrated in our country is to ensure both siblings would stand with each other in good and bad times whenever anyone requires the other. It is a bonding of moral support which makes this relationship very special. However, nowadays, sadly, siblings don’t stand together but against each other in court of law.”
The Court further elaborated on the emotional depth of the brother-sister relationship. It stated,
“During life’s highs and lows, joys and sorrows or when a storm blows, a sister does not fear for she knows that standing by her is her brother, who will protect her from every wrong. He is her shield, her strength, her weakness.… Likewise, a brother knows his sister like his own mind, knowing that there will never be anyone as trusting and kind. Having a sister is like holding a mirror to one’s soul, seeing you for who you are, understanding your silence. The beauty of this loving bond is that even when they are miles apart, they are always close at heart.”
Turning back to the facts of the case, the Court expressed regret over the situation and remarked that it was deeply unfortunate that two siblings, who were religious by nature, were fighting bitter legal battles over parental property.
On the issue of delay in filing the written statement, the High Court clarified the legal position and observed,
“It is settled position that for the errors of the office of the Court, the parties should not suffer. Therefore, this Court cannot attribute any negligence on part of the defendant and the confusion which arose in this matter and, therefore the submission made for imposing heavy cost on the defendant cannot be accepted”.
In its concluding remarks, the Court once again highlighted the importance of family harmony. It noted that the bond between a brother and sister may sometimes be strong and sometimes weak, but it is never truly broken.
The Court observed,
“To conclude, considering the age of the parties, it would be in their best interest that they resolve their disputes amicably thereby restoring peace and harmony in their relationship. … The City Civil Court should take up the main suit in its regular turn and no priority should be given to this matter”.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court’s order.
Advocates Ramprakash Pandey and Udaybhan Tiwari appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Arvind Taral represented the respondent.
Case Title:
Rangamma Soundappa Chetty v. Palaniswamy Obuli Chetty
Citation 2025:BHC-AS:56447.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sabarimala Gold Theft
