G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is dir ected against the judgment and decree dated 20. 7. 74 passed by the Civil judge, Bellary in R. A. No. 2773 on his file enhancing the damages granted by the Munsiff, Bellary in O. S. No. 33969 on his file, awarding da,magas of Rs. 100 in the suit to the plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff averred that the defendant-1 Municipal Council out of ill-will and malice served notice of distraint warrant on him on 16. 11. 68 and seized his furniture on 18. 11. 68 mainly on the ground that he instituted suits against the Municipal council, the plaintiff being a practising advocate. He further averred that it was done out of malice. As a result of such seizure and retention of the furniture and books for some time till the Court ordered release, the Municipal Council injured his reputation and for that he demanded rs. 3,000 as damages from the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council resis'ed the suit. The trial Court, appreciating the, evidence on record, found that what was done by the municipal Council was out of ill-will and malice and in that view, since there was no specific evidence in respect of damages, the trial Court awarded token damages of Rs 100. Aggrieved by the said iudgment, and decree the plaintiff appealed to the learned Civil Judge as staged above and the learned Civil Judge in the course of his judgment reassessing the evidence on record found that the finding of the trial court that the action of the Municipal Council lacked good faitb and was inspired by malice was correct. But the learned Civil Judge further observed:"it cannot be said that he (plaintiff) has suffered any considerable monetary loss because of the seizure of the articles from his house more-over, he has stated in his evidence that it is impossible for him to place any evidence before court to show how much monetary loss he has sustained. . However, this much is sure that the plaintiff was put to mental agony. Because of the execution of the distraint warrant his reputation has also suffered in the eyes of public The plainfiff is an advocate practising in Bellarv and he is an income tax and wealth tax assessee also. "in that view, the learned Civil judge enhanced the damages from rs. Because of the execution of the distraint warrant his reputation has also suffered in the eyes of public The plainfiff is an advocate practising in Bellarv and he is an income tax and wealth tax assessee also. "in that view, the learned Civil judge enhanced the damages from rs. 100 to Rs 500. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has instituted the above second appeal in this Court. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff appellant strenuously urged before me that the learned civil Judge having agreed with the learned Munsiff that plaintiff suffered iniury to his reputation, the plaintiff being a practising advocate paying income tax and wealth tax, substantial damapes oueht to have been granted by the learned Civil Judge that is the only point that arises for my consideration in this appeal. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that when there is injury to reputation of a person, substantial damages ought to be granted as general damages by courts. Mc Gregor on Damages, 14th edn. , speaking on this aspect in para- 1522 of his book, has started thus:"more technically, the damage is sometimes said to be 'presumed', particularly in cases involving injury to reputation. In defamation, the court is entitled to award substantial damages although proof of damage is not produced; in Tripp v. Thomas (1824) 3 B and C 427. it was held that 40 was properly awarded although no evidence of damage had been given at the trial. . . "thus, it is obvious that the Court should grant subtantial damages in the case of injury to the reputation of a person. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, bath the courts helow have found that the plaintiff is a practising advocate paving income tax and wealth tax and they have found that the action of the Municipal Council has caused injury to his reputation. That being so they ought to have granted sub- stantial damages even though there was no evidence regarding damages adduced by the plaintiff. ( 6 ) IN the result, therefore, I am persuaded to enhance the damages to Rs 1. 500 to make it substantial on the facts of the case. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed The damages of Rs. ( 6 ) IN the result, therefore, I am persuaded to enhance the damages to Rs 1. 500 to make it substantial on the facts of the case. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed The damages of Rs. 500 awarded by the Civil Judge is enhanced to Rs 1500 The defendant- respondent No. 1 shall pay the same alonp with costs of the plainitiff- appellant throughout. --- *** --- .