JUDGMENT This judgment will also dispose of F.A. 84/85. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.85 passed by Shri R.K. Seth, District Judge Raipur in C.S. No. 26-B/82. Plaintiff Mahant Vaishnavdas filed a suit against Balaram and 8 others for libel against the publication Ex. P-1 made by Balaram who alleged himself to be a political sufferer as well. The publication Ex. P-1 is as extracted below : 1- Hkz”V ,oa O;fHkpkjh egar nq/kk/kkjh eB] jk;iqj dks ‘kh?kz gVkdj eB dh laifÙk dh tk¡p dh tk,A 2- nw/kk/kkjh eB dk ‘kh?kz jk”Vªh;dj.k fd;k tk,A 3- egar oS”.konkl dh j[kSy uSuckbZ tks eB dh jstk dk dke djrh gS mlds eBikjk fLFkfr jk;iqj esa cus 8&9 yk[k :- ds Hkou dh tk¡p dh tk,A 4- egar oS”.konkl }kjk eB ds xk¡oksa dh lSdM+ksa ,dM+ tehu viuh j[kSy uSuckbZ ds cPpksa ds uke dj fn;k gS mls eB dks iqu% okil fnykbZ tkosA 5- egar oS”.konkl ds Åij esjs }kjk dh xbZ f’kdk;rksa ,oa fjiksVZ~l ij dk;Zokgh dh tk,A 6- egar oS”.konkl dk vkrad can fd;k tk,A 7- egar oS”.konkl }kjk gekjs Åij pyk, tk jgs NwBs vkijkf/kd izdj.k okfil djk, tkosaA 8- eB dh lkjh py o vpy laifÙk ftls egar oS”.konkl us vuf/kd`r :i ls cspk gS mldh U;kf;d tk¡p gksA 9- fiijksn MdSrh dkaM ftlesa eq>s o esjs ifjokj ds yksxksa dks ijs’kku fd;k tk jgk gS] mldh tk¡p gks vkSj lgh vijk/kh dks idM+k tk,A fuosnu ;fn mijksDr vkjksiksa esa ls ,d Hkh vkjksi xyr gks rks ;gha ij turk ds lkeus eq>s xksyh ekj nh tk, vU;Fkk egar oS”.konkl dks tsy Hkstk tk,A The trial Court framed as many as 11 issues but only 2 issues were relevant to the matter regarding libel and damages as were raised. The trial Court recorded the finding that defendant No. 1 utterly failed to establish the defence justification so far as the concerned allegations of the plaintiff being the man of loose character and having illicit relations with Nainabai, and after recording its finding, the trial Court assessed the compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5,000/-. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has erred in law in decreeing the suit, as according to the statement of the plaintiff himself the facts regarding the relationship with Nainabai are admitted and in this connection he placed the statement of PW 1 Plaintiff and invited the attention of the Court to Paras 27, 28 & 30. These Paragraphs are as extracted below :- ^^27- eSa fxjrkj Fkk ml nkSjku uSuckbZ jstk esjs ;gk¡ dke djrh Fkh ;k ugha eq>s ugha ekyweA eq>s ugha ekywe fd izfroknh&1 ckykjke dk uSuckbZ ls D;k fj’rk gSA** ^^28- eSa fot; dqekj dks tkurk gw¡ tks bl ekeys esa i{kdkj ugha gSA uSuckbZ dk fot; dqekj yM+dk gSA fot; dqekj vkSj uSuckbZ ls esjk ifjp; gqvk rks ;s nksuksa jk;iqj esa jgrs FksA ¼Lor% fo|kFkhZ eq>ls feyus vkrs Fks vkSj fot; dqekj Hkh fo|kFkhZ FkkA½ eB esa fo|kFkhZ dh jgus dh O;oLFkk gS vkSj fot; dqekj Hkh eB esa jgrk FkkA vktdy uSuckbZ vius ?kj esa jgrh gSA vkSj mldk edku eB ikjk esa gSA oks edku eSaus ns[kk gSA eq>s ugha ekywe fd ;s edku eB dh tehu ij cuk gS ;k ughaA vkt ls 25 lky igys tc ekyxqtkjh Fkh rc vkcknh dh tehu ekyxqtkjh ds FksA eB ,d ekyxqtkj FkkA** 30- ugha ekywe dh uSuckbZ ls esjk ifjp; igyh ckj fdrus lky igys gqvkA uSuckbZ eB esa dHkh dksbZ dke djrh Fkh ;k ugha mldh tkudkjh esjs dks ugha gSA ¼Lor% ukSdj yksx dke ij fdldks yxkrs gSa eq>s ugha ekywe½A** From the statements made in these paragraphs, it is not established that the plaintiff has relationship as has been published in Ex. P-1. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed before the Court the statement of defendant No. 7 Balaram and submitted on the basis of the statement contained in para 10 that the fact of illicit relationship of the Mahant with Nainabai can be inferred from the statement in the paragraph as this witness has stated that when Nainabai came to him after leaving her husband, at that time she was only having the wearing clothes and nothing else but now she is possessed of three-four houses. It may be noted that PW 7 is the brother of Nainabai. It may be noted that PW 7 is the brother of Nainabai. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the Indian Society, the brother will not tolerate such relationship and therefore the publication made by him may be taken to be correct statement. In paragraph 41, it has been stated by this witness regarding his sister that the plaintiff having the status of a Mahant was having illicit relationship with Nainabai and this thing he came to know for the first time in the year 1946 and thereafter he kept himself silent upto 1979 for the reason that Mahant used to threaten him. He has also stated that from this lady there are children and since he always used to threaten him, he all the years, since 1946, remained silent and has also stated that alongwith the threat he also used to pay him money. The submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is belied by the statement as stated above. I find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court. The appeal has no merit. Nothing has been pointed out so to satisfy the Court regarding perversity in exercise of the discretion. There is another appeal from the side of the Mahant for enhancement of the compensation. This appeal has also no substance, so to enhance the compensation awarded. In the result both the appeals (i.e. F.A. 62/85 and F.A. 84/85) fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs.