P. DEVADASS, J.

1. This Second Appeal involves an important question concerning legal profession.

2. Plaintiff Arunachalam has been a senior member of Tenkasi Bar. He has commanded good practice, both on the civil side and on the criminal side. His volume of work is an indication that he built up a lucrative practice. Clients flocked to him. Since he is a lawyer of eminence, he has had disciples. He became a mentor of many budding lawyers. Arunachalam's Office produced many good lawyers.

3. Advocate Arunachalam has been engaged by one Kathirvel Murugan. On the instruction of his said client, Advocate Arunachalam (P.W.1) issued Ex.A.1 lawyer notice dated 20.04.2001 to defendant Natarajan, (D.W.1). Defendant himself sent Ex.A.3 reply dated 27.04.2001, to Advocate Arunachalam. On reading Ex.A.2, Advocate Arunachalam got wounded, upset because it contained personal imputations against him, criticizing him as a lawyer. It was personal insinuation against him. Under these circumstances, Advocate Arunachalam issued him Ex.A.3 notice dated 12.05.2001, demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for having sent Ex.A.2. It was received by him under Ex.A.4, Acknowledgment.

4. Now, the defendant replied him through a lawyer under Ex.A.5 that as defendant himself a relative of him and both belongs to the same community, he took little bid liberty and replied him so under Ex.A.2 and he did not intend to defame him, humiliate him nor question his professional integrity. Under the circumstances, Advocate Arunachalam instituted the suit, claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages.

5. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement almost reiterating his contentions in his reply notice Ex.A.3.

6. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and tried the suit. During the trial, plaintiff Arunachalam examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6, while defendant Natarajan examined himself as D.W.1 and he did not mark any document.

7. Considering the submissions of both sides and the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court concluded that through his Ex.A.3, letter defendant had defamed plaintiff/ Advocate Arunachalam and thus decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- with 6% future interest and with cost.

8. By now defendant's life span was cut short. Plaintiff Advocate Arunachalam was also called by his Maker. They have become immortal but mortal like their wives have to carry the fighting spirit of their departed souls.

9. Defendant's wife challenged the trial Court's decree in the Sub Court, Tenkasi in A.S. No. 8 of 2011, while Arunachalam's wife responded to it by being a respondent in the first appeal. Now, the wives fought in glory of their beloved. Ultimately, defendant's wife lost the appeal.

10. It is pertinent to note that after the trial Court decree and before passing the appellate court's decree defendant passed away. In such circumstances, the 1st appellate Court ought not to have passed personal decree as against the wife of the deceased defendant, it should be from and out of the estate of her deceased husband.

11. In the circumstances, now, in this Second Appeal, defendant's wife is before us.

12. At the time of admission, the then learned Brother formulated the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the lower Appellate Court is legally or factually correct in confirming the Decree and Judgment of the Trial Court which decreed the suit when the appellant/ defendant had disproved plaintiff's case by clinching evidence?

2. Whether the decree of the lower appellate Court in confirming the decree of the trial Court awarding compensation for defamation when there is no defamation legally and without adequate materials for the alleged defamation?"

13. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in Ex.A.3, the defendant had made only a general comments and he did not mean to defame the plaintiff. Further, with regard to the very same matter, plaintiff also prosecuted the defendant i