O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant No. 1 in O. S. No. 39 of 1966 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Pathapatnam is the appellant in this second Appeal. The respondent filed the suit out of which the second appeal arises to recover a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of damages for defamation. The plaintiff s case was that he was a respectable Brahmin of the village and a teacher by profession and that his son had married the daughter of the 1st defendant.

( 2 ) THE 1st defendant failed to send his daughter to live with the son of the plaintiff and consequently there were differences between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant is an associate of defendants 1 and 2, Because of the misunderstandings between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the three defendants conspired together and wrote to the plaintiff a letter dt 27-12-1965 containing highly defamatory statements about the plaintiff. Both the lower courts have found that the letter contains several defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff. The lower Courts also found that the letter was written by the 3rd defendant to the dictation of def

Click Here to Read the rest of this document