The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendants were absolutely privileged in making the defamatory statement due to the communication being made to their legal adviser, but they were found to be actuated by malice in uttering and publishing the matter complained of.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of Chingleput dismissing an action for damages for defamation instituted by the first and second plaintiffs. The defamatory matter complained of was a communication made by the first and second defendants to one Mr. G. Krishnamachari, a Vakil at Chingleput and repeated by the said Vakil in a letter dated 9th May, 1927, addressed to the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff and the wife of the second defendant. The first defendant is the father of the second defendant. The matter, complained of was concerning the second plaintiff in the letter addressed as aforesaid to the first plaintiff by the said Krithnamachari to the following effect:

On or about 7th January, 1927, jour daughter Balammal ran away with one Manicka Asari from her husband clandestinely and was staying with him at Kadambathur for two days.

2. The second plaintiff was married to the second defendant in or about 1925 and was living with her husband till about March, 1927. Some time towards the latter part of 1926 misunderstandings seemed to have arisen between the second plaintiff and the defendants in regard to the Kasimalai worn by the second plaintiff and alleged to have been taken away from her by her husband the second defendant and not returned in spite of demand. As a result of this misunderstanding, the second plaintiff had to leave her husbands home and go to her parents house in or about March, 1927. On the 25th April, 1927, the first plaintiff addressed a letter to his son-in-law the second defendant complaining about the ill-treatment accorded to his daughter during her stay in his house in consequence of the misunderstandings and requesting him to take his wife and live with her. In answer to the said letter, the first and second defendants instructed their Vakil Mr. Krishnamachari to issue the letter dated 9th May, 1927. On receipt thereof the first plaintiff through his Vakil Mr. Nageswara Aiyar complained of the defamatory character of the communication contained in the letter of 9th May, 1927 and called upon them to unconditionally withdraw the same and apologise for the wrongful act. The defendants having failed and neglected to comply with the said request, the first plaintiff instituted a complaint of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Joint Magistrate of Chingleput found that the defamatory matter complained of, namely, the running away of the second plaintiff with Manicka Asari, was false and convicted them of the offence charged. The present suit was instituted for recovery of damages.

3. The material allegations are contained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 9 of the plaint and they are as follows:

4. Subsequently on 25th April, 1927, the first plaintiff gave a registered notice to second defendant requesting him to take back second plaintiff to his house and the defendants sent a reply dated 9th May, 1927, accusing second plaintiff of having run away with one Manicka Asari and having lived with him for two days at Kadambathur.

5. The allegation is absolutely false and was made quite maliciously and recklessly and was intended not only to ruin the character of the second plaintiff but also to ruin her for life and brand her as an unchaste woman.

9. The defendants are therefore liable in damages to the plaintiffs for having unnecessarily defamed second plaintiff.... The first plaintiff is also damnified by the false allegations against his daughter and is also entitled to damages.

4. Before the filing of the written statement, the first defendant seemed to have asked for particulars of the precise words complained of as being defamatory and the dates when and the persons to whom and the place where the defamatory matter was published by the defendants. In answer thereto, the plaintiffs gave particulars wherein the plaintiffs distinctly stated that they sued in respect of the statement contained in th