Judgment :- (Appeal against the Judgment and decree of the leaned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul and passed in O.S.No.73/86 dated 09.01.1989.) This appeal is directed as against the Judgment and decree dated 09.01.1989, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in O.S.No.73/86 dated 09.01.1989, which was filed by the plaintiff for compensation as against the defendant for defamation. 2. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus; The plaintiff being a lady filed a suit for damage on the ground that she was defamed by the defendant by threatening her that he would show her naked photos to others and thereby he demanded money from the plaintiff. It so happened that the defendant gave her some liquid and made her unconscious and during that time he raped her and took photograph of her naked body; and thereby when she sent legal notice through her advocate on 06.09.1985, demanding such photos should be returned back to her and also the blank papers in which her signatures were obtained. The defendant gave a reply dated 08.09.1985, denying any such photos in his possession. But he made defamatory allegations as though she was a lady of immoral character and she had intercourse with merchants, surveyors and whomsoever wanted to sleep with her. He also referred her as a call girl. As such by his reply notice defamed her reputation. She sent another legal notice calling upon him to apologize for his defamatory statement. But he refused to respond positively. Hence, she filed the suit. 3. Per contra, the defendant denied the allegations and contended that he did not rape her and took photos of naked body; the defendant did not threaten her as alleged by her; the defendant did not instruct his advocate to issue any such reply notice and he was not aware of the contents of the said reply notice; but, On the other hand the defendant had settled the dispute as per document dated 18.09.1985 and both sides signed in it. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as three issues. 5. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W1 along with P.Ws 2 to 5. The defendant examined himself as DW.1 along with D.Ws 2 to 5. Exs. A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.B1 to B14 were marked. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as three issues. 5. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W1 along with P.Ws 2 to 5. The defendant examined himself as DW.1 along with D.Ws 2 to 5. Exs. A1 to A9 were marked. Ex.B1 to B14 were marked. The trial Court ultimately awarded damages in favour of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.10,000/- 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant preferred this appeal mainly on the following grounds. (1) The trial court failed to consider the contradictory versions among the deposition of P.Ws 1 to 4. (2) The trial Court failed to consider Exs.B4 to B10 and B14 in proper perspective. (3) The plaintiff owes lot of money to the defendant. (4) The trial Court ought to have accepted the compromise arrived at the Panchayat as in Ex.B1. (5) The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant came to an end on executing Ex.B1. (6) The trial Court failed to hold that the plaintiff has not proved her allegation of rape and the naked photos having been taken by the defendant. (7) No evidence was adduced before the trail Court that the defendant allegedly extracted money from the plaintiff and that the photos were shown to the third parties. 7. Accordingly he prayed for the dismissal of the suit after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 8. The Points for consideration: (1) Whether the defendant defamed the respondent/plaintiff by making false allegations about her and also showing her naked photos to various persons? (2) Whether there is any infirmity in the Judgment and decree of the trial Court? 9. A perusal of the Judgment of the trial Court at Para No.6, would show that the lower Court has given a specific finding that the defendant took photos of the plaintiff, while she was naked and that D.W1 went to the extent of stating that such taking out naked photos and showing it to others would not amount to defaming her. The trial Court very correctly passed remarks as against such plea of the defendant and also about the mentality of D.W1. The trial Court very correctly passed remarks as against such plea of the defendant and also about the mentality of D.W1. The trial Court also considering the evidence of P.W2, gave its finding that the defendant through P.W2 demanded the photos from D.W.3, and at that time P.W.2 also saw such naked photos, wherein the plaintiff and defendant were found figured. 10. Ex.B1 is an agreement, which was written between the plaintiff and her husband on the one side and the defendant on the other side and in that agreement itself it is found stated as follows: "I ghh;l;o II ghh;l;oahUf;nfh II tJ ghh;l;o I ghh;l;oahUf;nfh ehsJ njjp Kjy; ve;jtpjkhd KiwapYk; gzk; bfhLf;f ntz;oajpy;iy. nkw;go ghh;l;o xUtUf;FbfhUth; ve;jtpjkhd eiffSk; xUtUf;bfhUth; bfhLf;f ntz;oajpajpy;iy. I tJ ghh;l;oapy; 2tJ egUk; II tJ ghh;l;oa[k; nrh;e;J clYwt[ bfhs;Sk; bghGJ vLj;jg; nghl;nlhf;fs; cga ghh;l;ofSld; vJt[kpy;iy. clYwt[ itj;jg;bghGJ ve;j rk;ke;jKk; gpd; bjhlh;r;rp cgaghh;l;ofsplk; ,dpnky; ,y;iy. mtuth; ,;lk;nghy; jdpj;jdpna tpyfp ,Ue;Jbfhs;s ntz;oaJ ,J tpakhf cgaghh;l;ofs; ve;j eltof;ifa[k; vLf;ff; TlhJ" 11. It is therefore crystal clear from the above narration that in Ex.B1 it is stated that the defendant had illicit intimacy with the plaintiff and that such photos of illicit relationship created problems for her. In that connection alone, the plaintiff issued Ex.A1, for which, the defendant issued Ex.A2, contending defamatory statement about her. There is nothing to show that the defendant had no knowledge about the contents of Ex.A2. If really, Ex.A2 was issued by the defendant's Lawyer, without his instruction, he ought to have taken action against the Advocate, by approaching the Bar Council, but no such steps were taken by the defendant. Ex.A4 is the reply notice, to Ex.A3 which is the notice given by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to pay necessary compensation to her in the form of maintenance to her and to her children. The previous notice as contained in Ex.A2 has been referred to therein. PW5, the Advocate, who issued both the notices also deposed before the Court confirming the issuance of such notices as in Exs.A2 and A4; he would categorically state that he issued such notices only on the instructions of the defendant. During cross-examination also there is nothing to show that P.W5 on his own accord set out the facts and averments in Ex.A2, the reply notice. During cross-examination also there is nothing to show that P.W5 on his own accord set out the facts and averments in Ex.A2, the reply notice. It is therefore clear that only as an after thought on the part of the defendant, by weaving ropes of sand, took pleas quite antithetical to what he has committed himself in Black and white. In the written statement, the defendant did not invoke the plea of justification of truth but he would totally deny the fact of he having sent any such defamatory reply and he would also deny the allegations as against him. But the plaintiff positively by examining herself as P.W.1 and also by examining the other witnesses on her side proved that the defendant indulged in the acts so as to defame her. P.Ws.3 & 4 also would support the case of the plaintiff by deposing that they had seen the said obscene photos. 12. The trial Court at Para No.8 of its Judgment, clearly dealt with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 and correctly arrived at the conclusion that there took place a Panchayat and at that time only Ex.B1 emerged. However P.W1 would state that things did not takes place as per Ex.B1. The evidence of D.W4 was correctly discarded by the trial Court as it contains contradictory versions; he would state that the plaintiff came to his place and stayed in his house four times and that he did not permit any other outsider to stay there. The trial Court therefore held that the evidence of P.W.4 was not reliable for holding that P.W1 was in the habit of staying with other males. 13. In view of the evidence available on record as against the defendant that the defendant after instructing his advocate P.W5, to give defamatory reply had chosen to resile from it by putting forth barefaced lie as though he did not instruct P.W5, and that he indulged in vilification campaign as against the plaintiff by showing the said photos to others, the defendant is squarely liable for defamation and accordingly, the trial Court correctly held him liable to pay damages. 14. The trial Court awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages which, in my view, is a moderate sum by any standard and nothing has been highlighted as to how it can be termed as excessive. 14. The trial Court awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages which, in my view, is a moderate sum by any standard and nothing has been highlighted as to how it can be termed as excessive. Hence, in these circumstances, this point is decided accordingly. 15. In view of the reasons given for deciding the above said point, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed, by confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in O.S.No.73/86 dated. 09.01.1989. However, in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.