Ratios
a. Mere writing of words howsoever defamatory they may be, to a person intended to be read by him and not intended to be read by a third person do not make a man liable to pay damages in a Civil action.
b. In an action for defamation, it is necessary to show that the writer intended his defamatory writing to be read by person or persons other than the addressee or at least he ought to have known that they were likely to be so read by a third person or persons.

1. The present Second Appeals have been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, questioning the correctness of the Judgment and decree, dated 20.09.2005, passed by the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S. Nos.6 and 7 of 2005, whereby, the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Panrutti, in O.S. Nos.94 and 132 of 1999 on 29.09.2004, dismissing the individual suits filed by the plaintiffs claiming compensation/damages from the defendant on the ground of defamation, came to be confirmed.

2. For better understanding and appreciation of the case and cause, the factual background in which the lis was initiated by the unsuccessful plaintiffs is necessarily to be re-capitulated particularly in regard to the claim of the respective plaintiffs/appellants that they individually suffered defamation by the act of the defendant/respondent.

i) S.Gurusamy Reddiar/appellant in Second Appeal No.142 of 2007 filed O.S. No.94 of 1999 against defendant-Purushothama Reddiar, who is none else than the blood brother of the son-in-law of Gurusamy Reddiar by name Dr.R.Jayachandran viz., the appellant in S.A. No.143 of 2007/plaintiff in O.S. no.132 of 1999, by pleading that he has good name and reputation amongst the public at his native place/Panrutti and he owns properties worth crores of rupees and he is also operating buses; that his son-in-law/Dr.Jayachandran is one of the famous Doctors at Chennai and he runs a Hospital by name Guest Hospital, Chetpet, Chennai; that, after partition in the family of his son-in-law, the properties/land fell to the share of the son-in-law were initially entrusted with his elder brother/defendant for development and for derivation of income there-from, however, as the defendant evaded to account for the income and intended to take the properties, the son-in-law nominated the plaintiff as his Power Agent to administer the properties; that the defendant, aggrieved by such action, with the influence of his eldest Brother by name P.R.Bhaskara Reddiar, who is an Engineer in the TNEB, obtained agricultural service connection in respect of the property of the son-in-law, whereupon, the plaintiff as power agent of his son-in-law addressed the Electricity Board to take action against Bhaskara Reddiar and he further followed up the matter by filing a suit in O.S. No.78/99 on the file of Sub Court, Vrithachalam; that thereafter, on the instructions of the son-in-law, the plaintiff also filed a suit in O.S. No.95/99 before the same Court for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the properties of the son-in-law attempted to be disturbed by the defendant; that the son-in-law also in his personal capacity issued notices dated 12.01.1999 and 20.02.1999 (marked as Exs.A1 and A2 in O.S. No.132 of 1999 filed by the son-in-law); that the reply notice dated 03.03.1999 (marked as Ex.A5), issued by the defendant, gave cause of action to the defamation proceedings as, in the said notice, it is stated that the real mischief-monger is the plaintiff/father-in-law, that so long as the plaintiff did not poke into the family affairs, the relationship between the brothers (Dr.Jayachandran and defendant) was smooth and that the plaintiff was engaging hooligans and had set up politicians to forcibly take the properties from the defendant, thereby, it was the plaintiff who himself is spoiling the reputation of his own son-in-law; that the defamatory wordings contained in the notice are nothing but expression of the defendant's intention to defame the plaintiff and to torture him mentally and also, equally the son-in-law; that when the plaintiff and his son-in-law jointly issued a notice under Ex.A8, dated 27.03.1999, demanding damages @ Rupees two lakhs, instead of showing remorse or expressing apologies, the defendant by notice under Ex.A9, dated 05.04.1999, justified his action by stating that the allegations are true; and that the defamatory notice dated 03.03.1999 having given a clear cause of a