JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 96 CPC, aggrieved by the decree & judgment, dated 22.12.2016, passed in O.S.No.134 of 2008 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku.

2. Heard Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants/ 1st defendants and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff is a permanent resident of Pydiparru. The plaintiff and his family members own an extent of Ac.2.65 cents of land in Pydiparru village under R.S.No.39/8. The 4th defendant, District Collector, West Godavai, issued a notification on 11.02.2007, in order to acquire the aforesaid land for the purpose of house sites under Indiaramma Scheme. The plaintiff filed W.P.No.3784 of 2007 before the High Court challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and the High Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings. The defendants 1 to 3 are the plaintiff’s political rivals and opponents and the husband of the 1st defendant is the mastermind behind them. On 09.05.2007, the defendants 1 to 3, with a malicious intention, conspired together to cause wrongful loss and damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and submitted a report to the 5th defendant, Tahasildar, Tanuku, while marking a copy to the 4th defendant, to the effect that the plaintiff is digging the land and converting the same into a tank without prior approval of the government. Immediately, on receipt of the said complaint, the 6th defendant inspected the property along with Revenue Inspector, Tanuku, and created a record of seizure (panchanama) and insisted that the police constable shall take custody of the vehicles present over there. He addressed a letter to the SHO, Tanuku, copies of which were also marked to the RDO, Kovvur, and the Inspector of Police, Tanuku. On the basis of the said letter, the Station House Officer, Tanuku Rural, registered a case in Crime No.87 of 2007 against the plaintiff and his family members under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The plaintiff suffered mental agony, loss of reputation and prestige in his village. Thereafter, he preferred criminal revision petition 3891 of 2007 before the High Court which quashed the FIR and the proceedings thereof. Thus, it is clear that defendants 1 to 3 have initiated malicious prosecution against the plaintiff with a view to defame him and his family members. The plaintiff is entitled to proceed against all the defendants for the offence of defamation and is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages to a tune of Rs.10 lakkhs from defendants 1 to 3 and 6 personally and from the government as the Government is vicariously liable for the acts done by its employees. Hence the suit is filed.

(b) Defendants 1 & 2 filed written statement denying the plaint 1st allegations and further contending that the defendant is Sarpanch and defendants 2 & 3 are members of Mandal Praja Parishad, Pydiparru village. Their duty is to see that all the benefits provided by the government reach the poor people in a proper way. The government of Andhra Pradesh selected Pydiparru village as ‘Indiramma Adarsha Gramam-2006.’ The government, in order to provide house sites and houses, issued notification to acquire certain lands of the village. Aggrieved by the proposed acquisition of their lands, certain land owners approached the High Court and obtained interim orders. Defendants 1 to 3 received information that the lands are being converted into tanks with an intention to avoid acquisition by the government. Basing on the said information, with a bona fide belief, defendants 1 to 3, being representatives of the people and with good intention to protect the interests of the poor people, reported the matter to the Tahasildar to verify and take action. On that