Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2003 passed in A.S.No.92 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2002 passed in O.S.No.33 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for damages.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he is the Village Administrative Officer of Kazhiyappa Nallur village from the year 1997 and discharging his duties to the best of his abilities and to the satisfaction of the superiors and the defendant is the Village Assistant and working under the plaintiff and one Asokan filed a suit before the District Munsif Sirkali for recovery of possession of the property involved in the said suit and the said suit was decreed and Asokan took delivery of the said property on 30.06.2000 and the plaintiff and the defendant accompanied the Amin of the said Court along with Asokan and identified the property to be taken delivery and also attested the delivery account and subsequently, one Ramadoss preferred the suit in O.S. No.245/98, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali against the abovesaid Asokan for the relief of injunction, as if, he is the sub lessee and in the said suit, the defendant tendered evidence on the side of Ramadoss, as PW5, on17.11.2000 and he has deposed as if no delivery was effected and he signed the delivery account because the plaintiff signed it and also denied as to having been to the village at the time of delivery being effected and further, tendered evidence as if the plaintiff would create records, give false certificate and accustomed to create false signature and that he would stoop to any level if money is paid to him and the abovesaid statements made by the defendant in the civil forum in the presence of the Advocate and public assembled before the Court and the false statements were made deliberately in order to defame the plaintiff as if the plaintiff used to receive money and would not give any share to him and as if the plaintiff used to discharge the duties without consulting the defendant and the statements were made maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause and the defendant made the statements knowing fully well that they were all false with the sole aim to defame the plaintiff and to put him to mental agony. However, his evidence was not accepted by the District Munsif Sirkali and on account of the abovesaid statement made by the defendant, the plaintiff's friends, relatives etc., began to question him and though the plaintiff convinced of his innocence, the plaintiff has been mentally upset and spent sleepless nights and his body became emaciated and he has been forced to consult a doctor for his body ailments and informed to be suffering from mental agony and on account of false statements of the defendant, the high esteem in which the plaintiff has held in the midst of the public has come down and the plaintiff has been prevented from discharging his duties properly on account of the same and pointing out all these facts, notice had been issued to the defendant on 02.01.2001 claiming damages and the defendant sent reply on 08.01.2001 reiterating as if all the statements made by him are true statements and the defendant has also enclosed a copy of the blank papers in which the plaintiff has signed and it is a fact that the plaintiff used to sign blank papers in order to facilitate the defendant to fill up the same and submit the papers for getting the leave and the defendant, being the assistant working under the plaintiff, the plaintiff used to sign blank papers and handover to the defendant and the said position is now been taken advantage and a false story has been coined, as if the plaintiff used to issue false certificate and as if the plaintiff used to attest documents without any proper spot inspection an