K N PALANISWAMY GOUNDER Vs. P SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 121 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur dated 29. 9. 1988.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the appellant and the defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. The appellant herein filed the suit for the recovery of damages of a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. The case of the appellant is that the he was the Secretary of Koduvai Survodaya Sangam which was allied to Tamil Nadu Survodaya Sangam and there was a Trust Board to conduct the affairs of Koduvai Survodaya Sangam. It is stated that the appellant was an employee of the Sangam and he became the Secretary of the Sangam and during the relevant time, the appellant was the Treasurer of the Tamil Nadu Survodaya Sangam. It is also stated that the respondent herein was also an employee of Koduvai Survodaya Sangam and he was removed from service. It is stated that on 13. 3. 1986 when the Trust Board of Koduvai Survodaya Sangam was holding its meeting in the Sangam premises, the respondent distributed a notice dated 13. 1. 1986 (Ex. A-1) levelling accusations against the appellant, the list of which is given in the plaint. It is stated that the accusations are very serious in nature such as, misappropriation of funds by the appellant, preparation of false vouchers by him and purchasing lands at underestimated price by the appellant. It is stated that the respondent issued the notice to all members of the Trust Board when the meeting was going on. The appellant also issued a notice dated 20. 3. 1986 to the respondent claiming damages of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to which the respondent did not send any reply. The appellant has filed the suit on the ground that the respondent has published defamatory allegations against him in the notice issued by him (Ex. A-1) and the appellant suffered mental agony as well as sustained physical harm as the members of the Trust Board questioned him as to the contents of the notice and hence, the suit has been filed claiming damages and though the appellant estimated the damages at Rs. 1 lakh, he restricted his claim to a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(3.) THE respondent in his written statement contended that he was not liable to pay any damages as there was no basis for estimating the damages at Rs. 50,000/- and he denied the distribution of the notice in the meeting of the Trust Board. The respondent has also stated that there was personal enmity between the appellant and the respondent and the appellant has dismissed the respondent from service arbitrarily. It is also stated that the respondent has suffered by the wrongful action of the appellant. The respondent has denied that the appellant suffered damage to his reputation because of the acts of the respondent. The respondent has also denied that he published or distributed the notice.