JUDGMENT :

The appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.23 of 2012, by the learned II Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi, in confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. O.S.No.172 of 2007, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff, as per the averments made in he plaint, in short, is as follows :

The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant in O.S.No.75 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathankulam, seeking injunction. The plaintiff had filed an I.A.No.335 of 2005 for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default. The defendant filed a counter for the same on 29.06.2007, in which, the defendant levelled certain allegations, which are scandalous and defamatory. The defendant alleged in the counter in I.A.No.335 of 2006 that the plaintiff is doing real estate and money lending business and also performs 'Katta Panchayat' regarding the property dispute, who has got money power and muscle power and as predominantly in the said area. The allegations are totally irrelevant to the issues in the suit or the petition. Thereby, the defendant spread derogatory and defamatory to the Judge, O.T. Clerk, Advocate Clerks and other connected with Court work and general public. The plaintiff was working as Headmaster in a Higher Secondary School and had obtained Doctorate in Tamil. The defendant, by filing such counter, spreading malicious allegations against the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff had been gravely injured in his credit and reputation and had been brought to odium and contempt in the eyes of the public and thereby suffered pain and humiliation. Quantifying the damages claimed by him at Rs. 10,00,000/-, the plaintiff sought a decree of court in his favour for the said sum. The plaintiff had issued a Lawyer's Notice, dated 26.09.2007, demanding the above said sum. The defendant received the same on 27.09.2007, but he had not chosen to pay the amount. On account of the financial constraints, the plaintiff restricts his claim to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of damages of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) from the defendant.

4. The defendant filed a written statement contending interalia that the averments made in the plaint are false. The plaintiff is a native of Sankarankudierppu Village and was working as Headmaster and retired from service. He is at present residing at Tuticorin. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.75 of 2005, before the District Munsif Court, Sattankulam, for permanent injunction and for that case, he used to visit his native place and because of all those things, the plaintiff wanted to drag the defendant to Tuticorin and only in order to drag this defendant to Tuticorin, the plaintiff filed this suit for damages without any legal basis. The counter filed in I.A.No.334 of 2005 will not amount to publication. The representation, by way of counter made by the defendant in legal proceedings, will not amount to defamation. The suit schedule property in O.S.No.75 of 2005 is situated adjacent to the property of the defendant. The plaintiff threatened and compelled the defendant to sell her property to the plaintiff and for that purpose, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.75 of 2005. Now, by filing this suit, the plaintiff is harassing the defendant in order to blackmail the defendant to sell her property to the plaintiff. The suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action for the suit and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, one S.Dasan and Rajan were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Exs.A1 to A25 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings on