JUDGMENT 1. Following the case of Veluthamana v. Pathuma (1913) 17 I.C. 131 we hold that neither Section 15 nor Section 6(3) of the Improvements Act allows a re-valuation of improvements unless there have been additional improvements effected after the first valuation or there has been a change in the condition of the improvements. 2. Section 20 referred to by the District Judge has no relevancy. 3. The District Judges order is set aside and that of the Munsif restored with costs of the defendants in this and the Lower Appellate Court.