Qualified privilege applies to statements made to protect one's own interest, and the defense of justification by truth must be proven in defamation cases.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1995, passed by the Sub-Court, Tenkasi in A.S. No.85 of 1993 which was filed by the defendant as against the judgment and decree, dated 30.04.1993, passed by the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi in O.S. No.100 of 1991 which was filed by the plaintiff as against the defendant claiming damages for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

2. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

The second appellant herein Balakrishna Raja filed the Original Suit O.S. No.100 of 1991 in the Court of District Munsif, Tenkasi as against the respondent Thirumurugan herein claiming damages to a tune of Rs.10,000/- for having defamed the second appellant and the Trial Court awarded Rs.2,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, Thirumurugan preferred the Appeal in A.S. No.85 of 1993 in the Court of Sub-Court, Tenkasi which set aside the Trial Courts judgment and dismissed the Original Suit O.S. No.85 of 1993 by allowing the Appeal.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff-Balakrishna Raja has preferred this Second Appeal, which has been admitted to decide the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the respondent had proved his contention that Ex.A.3 was justified by truth?

2. Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in deciding the case on the plea of justification by truth when such a plea was not raised in the written statement and when there is no issue regarding the defence of justification by truth?"

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent and his counsel were absent despite an opportunity having been given.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would advance the argument to the effect that the act of the respondent herein having falsely complained as though the second appellant uttered out certain objectionable words as against the respondent, would prima facie amount to defamation. The unassailable and indubitable fact is that the respondent herein sent Petitions to the Chief Minister and to the Collector alleging inter alia that those words were uttered out by Balakrishna Raja while he was attempting to compromise the dispute between the respondent and. one Subramania Raja.

7. In Ex.A. 3, at Page No. 3 the following are found set out by the respondent:

TAMIL

Those Tamil sentences could be translated near about as under:

"Suddenly, Thiru. Balakrishna Raja shouted, if you do not agree for the compromise, we will set on ablaze your car; who will question it, we shall see. I with the influence of higher officials whom I know, would square up the complaint as against him (Subramania Raja). I will physically liquidate you."

8. The grievance of the Balakrishna Raja is that he did not utter out such words and even then the respondent herein falsely alleged in Ex.A.3 as though he uttered out those words/sentences. Even assuming that the respondent falsely alleged as though Balakrishna Raja uttered out those words it did not amount to defamation. Those words are only intimidating/ threatening words. Simply because the respondent alleged that Balakrishna Raja uttered out such words, it cannot be construed that reputation of Balakrishna Raja had gone out. Those alleged words are not so filthy or obscene so as to infer that a person who allegedly uttered such words must be a man of debased character or an immoral person.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent/appellant has argued that there is no absolute privilege available in favour of the respondent in incorporating such words in his Petition. The respondent/defendant in his deposition as D.W.1 would narrate that in the process of effecting compromise Balakrishnara Raja did utter out such words. The fact remains that there was attempt to compromise ended in a fiasco. However, D.W.1 would narrate that since the r