P. Kalaiyarasan, J.

The suit has been filed seeking compensation of Rs. 25,50,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only] for printing and circulating cards containing defamatory words, causing insult, dis-reputation, disrespect, disregard and mental agony to the plaintiff and for costs.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff and the first defendant got married on 25.11.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs at Kankagadurgamma Temple, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. For both of them, it is a second marriage. The second defendant is the father of the first defendant. The first defendant after the demise of her first husband Beemana Boyina Anjaniyulu, got employment on compassionate ground in the Hongkong Sangai Banking Corporation. The plaintiff is an Advocate clerk in the Madras High Court.

3. After the marriage, the attitude of the first defendant-wife was totally indifferent. When the plaintiff used to visit the bank to pick up the first defendant after office hours, the first defendant prevented the plaintiff entering the bank premises and would instruct him to wait in the bus stand, till she comes out of the bank. On 14.11.2006, when the plaintiff was in the High Court, the first defendant along with second defendant and one Kottaiah, barged into the residence of the plaintiff by breaking the padlock. When the plaintiff reached the house, they abused him and asked him to go out of the house. On 15.11.2006, the trio had forcibly thrown all the articles of the plaintiff out of the house and forced the plaintiff to leave the house.

4. After the death of first husband and entering into the second marriage with the plaintiff, the first defendant does not have any right or interest over the family of her first husband. On 15.01.2009, when the mother-in-law of the first husband, Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma died, the plaintiff happened to see the first defendant in the funeral that took place on 16.01.2009, not wearing the holy thread, metti, kum kum on the forehead, for the obsequies of Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma.

5. On 25.01.2009, the first defendant in collusion with the second defendant printed and distributed the obsequies card, as if the first defendant is the widow of Beemana Boyina Anchaneyalu and still continues to be the daughter-in-law of Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma. In the said card, the first defendant has mentioned her name as Beemana Boyina Bharani Bharathy, wife of late Beemana Boyina Anchaneyalu, which is contrary to the fact and the said cards were circulated with mala fide intention of defaming the plaintiff. In order to defame the plaintiff and in order to grab the property of late Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma, the first defendant had deliberately printed the defamatory instrument.

6. The plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice dated 10.10.2009. The first and second defendant sent a reply on 17.11.2009, denying the printing and distribution of such card. After the demise of Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma, the application filed by the first defendant to the Tahsildar Egmore-Nungambakkam, as if she is the legal heir of late Beemana Boyina Anjaniyulu has been rejected. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit.

7. The contentions in the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:

After the demise of first husband, the plaintiff and the first defendant got married and it is the second marriage for both of them. Admittedly, the first defendant is working in Hongkong Sangai Banking Corporation and the plaintiff is an Advocate clerk. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the first defendant has printed herself as the daughter-in-law of the deceased Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma and wife of late Beemana Boyina Anchaneyalu in the obsequies cards. There was no communication of false or disparaging information about the plaintiff at all on the said cards. The real motive behind the said exercise carried out by the relatives of the deceased Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma wa