JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. 1. It was not, we are sure, that gravity of this case which induced our learned colleague to refer it to a Bench of two Judges. The matter is one which might well have been disposed of by him. The suit out of which the appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff-respondent, Babu Ram, to recover damages for defamation alleged to have been conveyed in letters written to members of his brotherhood by the defendant and other persons. The defendant denied that he had defamed the plaintiff. The defamation was that the plaintiff Babu Ram, drank wine, committed adultery and had embraced Christianity. 2. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendants or any of them had given any information against him to the brotherhood. 3. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the letters complained of, but that Sagar Ram had wrongly reported the plaintiff to the brotherhood to be a drunkard, of bad character and of no religion, and gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 75, namely, “Rs. 50 on account of insult and Rs. 25 on account of mental and physical pain.” What the physical pain was, we are at a loss to understand. From this decree the present appeal has been preferred. We must in second appeal accept the finding of fact of the lower appellate Court, and the only question therefore before us is what, if any, damages the plaintiff is entitled to by reason of the defamation. The artificial rule in England thereby suits for oral defamation are restricted to three classes does not prevail in India, and there can be no doubt that in this country the language used by the defendant imputing moral misconduct to the plaintiff is actionable. 4. This is not a case of the mere use of abusive and insulting language. The plaintiff brought the matter before the domestic forum of his brotherhood and was acquitted of the aspersions on his character made by the defendant. It is perhaps to be regretted that he was not contented with this decision and thought it necessary to institute a suit. The plaintiff brought the matter before the domestic forum of his brotherhood and was acquitted of the aspersions on his character made by the defendant. It is perhaps to be regretted that he was not contented with this decision and thought it necessary to institute a suit. He has not proved that he suffered any substantial loss and the compensation awarded by the lower appellate Court is out of all proportion to the requirements of the case. We think, under the circumstances, that one rupee is abundant compensation. We reduce the decree accordingly to one rupee, and in other respects set aside the decree. To mark our disapprobation of a suit of such flimsy character, we direct that the parties respectively bear their own cost in all courts.