S.R.Singharavelu, J.: Plaintiffs in O.S. No.248 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Dindigul, are the appellants herein, who had averred in their plaint as follows: Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the parents of one Juliet Mary Paripoornam, whose date of birth is 19.6.1959. She passed her S.S.L.C. examination in the year 1976 and registered her name in the Employment Exchange, Dindigul, her registration number being W/569/76. She got a temporary appointment as a Section Writer for the works connected with intensive revision of Electoral Rolls of 148 Dindigul in the year 1978. She worked as Section Writer just for 25 days i.e., from 5.5.l983 to 30.5.1983. She was discharged from her job on the afternoon of 30.5.1983. As she did not get any further interview, while she enquired the Employment Exchange, it was replied that she was considered to be working still as a Section Writer. On 22.11.1983, when Juliet Mary Paripoornam went to Taluk Office and asked the Tahsildar as to how could there be false records as if she was still working as a Section Officer, it was stated that they received a letter from her stating that owing to her illness, she could not do the work and based upon the letter, they relieved her of the post. The act of Tahsildar of Taluk Office, Dindigul, to maintain records as if she was working and receiving salary even after 30.5.1983 was a fraud played on her. It was because of that reason, she could not get any further interview. So, Juliet Mary Paripoornam had to stay behind the doors without any interview to attend. On 24.11.1983, she told her parents about this and that was the last meeting. Subsequently, she fell from the top of the Dindigul Rock Fort and committed suicide, due to the fraud committed by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Dindigul. Therefore, a damage of Rs.1.00 lakh has to be granted. 2. In the written statement filed by the respondents/ defendants, the following was contended: The suit is vexatious. On verification of records in Taluk Office, Dindigul it is known that one Juliet Mary Paripoornam was employed temporarily as one of the 13 candidates selected as part-time writers in the Election Division for the purpose of correction of Electoral Rolls of the year 1984 through the Employment Exchange, Dindigul. Her services were terminated on the afternoon of 30.5.1983. On verification of records in Taluk Office, Dindigul it is known that one Juliet Mary Paripoornam was employed temporarily as one of the 13 candidates selected as part-time writers in the Election Division for the purpose of correction of Electoral Rolls of the year 1984 through the Employment Exchange, Dindigul. Her services were terminated on the afternoon of 30.5.1983. Subsequently, she was appointed as part-time Writer from the year 1983 in the above said Election Division, but, she did not join. However, as usual, a copy of the above appointment order was forwarded to the Employment Exchange Office, Dindigul. On 22.11.1983, Juliet Mary filed a petition, stating that she wanted a certificate that she did not join the Electoral Roll Correction Duty, as she was not well. Accordingly, as wanted by her, a certificate was issued on 24.11.1983. Later, it was known that the above girl committed suicide. That has no bearing or nexus with the defendants, who have nothing do with the death of the plaintiffs’ daughter. The suit is an ingenious one and is a novel method to extract money and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 3. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: (i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages and, if so, to what extent? (ii) To what relief, the plaintiffs are entitled? 4. First plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. One Devaprakasam, Special Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar was examined as D.W.1 and he marked Exs.B-1 to B-5. 5. Considering the material available on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Judge found that there was no proximity to the death of Juliet Mary Paripoornam with any of the actions of the Revenue Department and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs. 6. The point that arises for consideration before us is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages and, if so, to what extent? 7. Point: 7.1. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs. 6. The point that arises for consideration before us is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages and, if so, to what extent? 7. Point: 7.1. Plaintiffs, who are the parents of the deceased Juliet Mary Paripoornam, who was aged about 24 years, prayed for damages from the respondent/ Revenue Department, the Chief Secretary at Madras and the District Collector, Dindigul, for the vicarious liability on the part of Tahsildar, Dindigul, as according to them it was due to the failure to send interview card and an alleged fraud played by the latter, Juliet Mary Paripoornam had happened to commit suicide somewhere in November, 1983. 7.2. Admittedly, the deceased had qualified herself in the S.S.L.C. examination. S.S.L.C. certificates and transfer certificate were respectively marked as Exs.A-1 and A-2. Her conduct certificate was marked as Ex.A-3. Again, it is not disputed that among the 13 candidates, the deceased was also selected as a Part-time Writer in the Election Division for the purpose of Electoral Rolls of the year 1984 from the Employment Exchange, Dindigul, and as seen from Ex.A-4, she was in such employment from 5.5.1983 to 30.5.1983 and relieved thereafter. She committed suicide in November, 1983. 7.3. First plaintiff, during the course of his examination as P.W.1, deposed in his chief-examination that there was a suicide note, written by the deceased, whereby it was mentioned as if due to the fraud played on her by Taluk Office, she committed suicide. It is very much pertinent to note that such a note has not seen the light of the day. P.W.2, Dayanidhi, who is known to the family of plaintiffs, deposed in his chief-examination as if the suicide note was seized by the police. P.W.3, Ayyavu, who is also a witness known to the plaintiff’s family, deposed as if police have read before him the suicide note. But, there is no reason why that document had not been sent for from the police nor a certified copy thereof was filed. 7.4. In this connection, we cannot ignore the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that due to the misunderstanding with the family members about the proposed marriage of the deceased, she committed suicide. But, there is no reason why that document had not been sent for from the police nor a certified copy thereof was filed. 7.4. In this connection, we cannot ignore the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that due to the misunderstanding with the family members about the proposed marriage of the deceased, she committed suicide. In fact, P.W.1, in the course of his cross-examination, had stated that efforts were being made for the arrangement of his daughter’s marriage and during which time, she died. In view of the above admission made by P.W.1 himself, the possibility of his daughter committing suicide due to the misunderstanding in the proposed marriage cannot also be ruled out Therefore, the burden of proving the nexus between the death of Juliet Mary Paripoornam and the alleged fraud played by the Taluk Office lies heavily upon plaintiffs. Now, we will have to see as to how far it was proved. 7.5. The specific allegation made in the plaint is as follows: “.....When all the other friends of Juliet Mary Paripoornam started receiving interview cards....she did not get any such interview card.. To her shock, she received a reply that she is still working there as a Section Writer...To ascertain the truth, Juliet Mary Paripoornam went to Taluk Office on 22.11.1983 and asked the Tahsildar.. how could be records that she is still working as a Section Writer..” 7.6. It is not her case that a fresh list had been sent to Taluk Office, containing her name also and that the Tahsildar had wantonly omitted to send a card of interview to her. The specific case was as if while Juliet Mary enquired the Employment Office as to why she was not sent any interview card, the reply was that, as per records, she was still working and therefore, her name was not sponsored. 7.7. Therefore, the only grievance against Taluk Office was that records were prepared as if she was working there, in spite of the fact that she had been relieved on 30.5.1983. Only if this is found to be true, Juliet Mary may have grievance. 7.8. But, the fact remains that even for the subsequent period in November, 1983, the name of the deceased was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, when required by the Taluk Office. Exs.B-2 to B-4 would reveal this aspect. Only if this is found to be true, Juliet Mary may have grievance. 7.8. But, the fact remains that even for the subsequent period in November, 1983, the name of the deceased was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, when required by the Taluk Office. Exs.B-2 to B-4 would reveal this aspect. Had Taluk Office prepared false records as if the deceased was still working subsequent to 30.5.1983, the Employment Exchange, Dindigul, would not have sent a list under Ex.B-4 dated 9.11.1983, containing the name of the deceased. In fact, the proceedings of Tahsildar dated 9.11.1983 through Ex.B-4 very well show that 13 candidates, including the deceased, were temporarily appointed for the works connected with the Revision of Electoral Rolls of 148 Dindigul Assembly Constituency, 1984. There is no proof to hold that it is only on representation of the Tahsildar that she should submit a letter, stating that owing to her illness, she could not do work and may be relieved of the post. Even Ex.A-5 letter dated 4.6.1983, discharging the candidates, did not quote or read any such alleged letter of the deceased. There is no satisfactory evidence to hold that there was a requirement made by the Tahsildar that only upon the issuance of a letter by the deceased, they might give a certificate. 7.9. Thus, we find no nexus between the action of the Tahsildar and the death of the deceased. Therefore, the point is answered against the plaintiffs. 8. For the reasons stated above, appeal suit fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. No.16075 of 1995 is closed.