JUDGMENT:

The defendants in O.S.No.300 of 1994 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Gurazala are the appellants herein. The respondent was the plaintiff, who originally filed suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for the defamation said to be caused by the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3 to the respondent.

2. The appellants and the respondent hereinafter referred to as defendants and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit, stating that he is a resident of Narayanapuram village of Dachepalli mandal living along with his sisters by name Lakshmi Devamma and Narasamma, who are all having agricultural lands at Madinapadu village of Dachepalli mandal, which are dry lands having no water source through Nagarjuna Sagar Right canal. The plaintiff submits that though their lands are not having water source through Nagarjuna Sagar Right canal, those were included in the ayacut, but they are not able to get water to their crops. It is the contention of the plaintiff that after abolition of posts of the Village Officers, the land revenue was not collected regularly, and recently the defendant Nos.3 and 4 were appointed as Village Administrative Officers for the villages Dachepalli and Madinapadu, and with the 2nd defendant he is having some misunderstandings. The plaintiff submits that no demand was made to him to pay the land revenue, and no demand notice was served to him for payment of land revenue or any due by him and his sisters. The main contention of the plaintiff is that on 16.04.1994, the 2nd defendant along with the defendant Nos.3 and 4, and other Office staff came in a jeep to his house, and demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.6,770/- as arrears of land revenue of their lands, by showing some chit by showing the amount due, for which he asked the details of taxes to be paid. The plaintiff submits that the 2nd defendants refused to furnish the details, he high handedly directed his subordinates to seize the movables from the house of the plaintiff, and then on his directions the subordinates have taken away a television with accessories, cycle and three chairs from his house by creating a scene in the locality about an hour. The plaintiff alleged that said incident attracted the neighbours and passersby, due to that he suffered great humiliation due to the said incident, he suffered mental agony for the illegal acts of the defendant Nos.2 to 4, which occurred without his fault. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that after the incident, he sent one Mr.Bathula Venkateswara Reddy to the 3rd defendant with money to know the details of arrears of land revenue, and then the defendant Nos.3 and 4 have collected Rs.4,000/- towards land revenue of his lands and the lands of his sisters. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 have manipulated receipts by striking out old names and writing the names, and later they returned the articles, which they illegally seized on 16.04.1994. The plaintiff filed suit on the ground that due to the illegal acts of the defendant Nos.2 to 4, his reputation has been defamed in the locality, and claimed damages of Rs.10,000/- from the defendant Nos.2 to 4, and filed suit for recovery of the same after issuance of Section 80 of CPC notice, on 07.07.1994, which said to be received by the defendants, but no reply was issued.

4. The 2nd defendant filed written statement, which is adopted by the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4, denying the allegations made in the plaint. The 2nd defendant has averred that the plaintiff is presently residing at Narayanapuram village, and the lands of the plaintiff and his sisters were situated at Madinapadu and Dachepalli villages, but he denied the contention of the plaintiff that those lands are dry lands, having no water source. The 2nd defendant submits that those lands are ayacut lands, which are being irrigated by Nagarjuna Sagar canal water. The 2nd defendant specifically denied the