GOVINDA BHAT, C. J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is by the first plaintiff against the judgment and decree in os. No. 3 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Tumkur, Respondent-1 to 3 are defendants-1 to 3 in the Court below. The 4th respondent is plaintiff No. 3. ( 2 ) THE Town Municipal Council of Turuvekere at its meeting held on 7-6-1962 resolved to sell a site within the Municipal limits for construction of a cinema theatre to one Mylaraiah at an upset price of Rs. 12,000. Plaintitt-1 and some members of the public represented to the Government that if the site had been sold in public auction it would have fetched a higher price. On a consideration of that representation, the Government, by its order dated 6-10-1962 directed the Municipal Council to sell the site in question in public auction on the condition that plaintiff-1 should deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000 as his initial bid. Accordingly, plaintiff-1 deposited a sum of 15,000 as his initial bid. Thereupon, auction was held but no higher bids were offered. Therefore, the bid of plaintiff-1 for Rs. 15,000 was accepted and the sale in his favour was confirmed by the Govt. It was a term of the sale that the purchaser of the site should put up a cinema theatre on the site purchased within two years of the sale. The sale deed executed by the municipality is dated 22-6-1963. ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF-1 submitted plans for construction of a cinema theatre, but the district Magistrate, Tumkur, rejected his application for grant of a "no- objection certificate" on the ground that the site was not suitable for construction of a cinema theatre. The District Magistrate, who is the competent authority to grant 'no Objection Certificate' found that the site was insufficient to comply with the requirements of the law governing the grant of 'no-objection Certificate' for construction of permanent cinema theatres. Thereupon, plaintiff-1 issued a notice that the sale is liable to be avoided as one of the terms of the sale deed could not be carried out. Thereafter, a suit was brought for cancellation of the sale deed dated 22-6-1963 and for a decree against the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. Thereupon, plaintiff-1 issued a notice that the sale is liable to be avoided as one of the terms of the sale deed could not be carried out. Thereafter, a suit was brought for cancellation of the sale deed dated 22-6-1963 and for a decree against the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 15,000 paid as the price for sale together with interest and certain incidential charges; in addition to the sum of rs. 15,000 claimed in restitution, the plaintiffs claimed the value of the stamp-paper for the sale deed amounting to Rs. 825, registration charges of Rs. 80 and a further sum of Rs. 3,252 alleged to be the amount expended by the plaintiffs in connection with the preparation of plans for obtaining 'no-objection Certificate' and other incidental expenses. Defendant-1, the State, contended that it is not a necessary party to the suit. Defendant-2 and 3 were the contesting defendants. ( 4 ) THE trial Court held that the sale deed was vitiated on the ground of mistake of fact, viz. , that it was assumed that the site sold by the Municipality to plaintiff-1 was fit for construction of a cinema theatre. On the basis of the said finding, the Court below set aside the sale deed and decreed a sum of Rs. 15,000 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from 11-10-1962 to the date of suit and future interest at 4 per cent per annum. It also awarded proportionate costs to the 1 st plaintiff. The suit against the first defendant was dismissed with costs. ( 5 ) THE first plaintiff has preferred the appeal against the said decree in which he has claimed that the Court below was in error in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for payment of the cost of stamp-paper and registration charges as also the expenditure of Rs. 3,252 alleged to have been incurred for the preparation of plans etc. The Municipality, in Cross-Objections, has challenged the decree for rs. 15,000. ( 6 ) AT the hearing of the appeal, the Cross-Objectors have remained absent and they are unrepresented. Therefore, their Cross-Objections are dismissed for non-prosecution. The suit is not one for damages. The claim arises only under S. 65 of the Contract Act, where the sale is set aside on the ground that it is vitiated by mutual mistake of fact. Therefore, their Cross-Objections are dismissed for non-prosecution. The suit is not one for damages. The claim arises only under S. 65 of the Contract Act, where the sale is set aside on the ground that it is vitiated by mutual mistake of fact. In a case of restitution, each party which has received any benefit under the contract is bound to make restitution and nothing more. The only benefit which the Municipality has derived under the sale deed which was set aside is the sum of Rs. 15,000 which has been decreed by the Court below with interest at 6 per cent till the date of suit and future interest at 4 per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show us any authority that the plaintiff can claim, in addition to the sum of Rs. 15,000, the expenses incurred in connection with the execution of the deed of conveyance. If the claim of the expenses by the plaintiffs is decreed against defendant-2 and 3, that would amount to award of damages. The claim of Rs. 3,252 alleged to have been incurred by by the plaintiffs in connection with the preparation of plans and incidental expenses are also in the nature of damages. No case for damages has been made out in the plaint. Therefore, the Court below in our opinion, was right in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for costs of conveyance and expenses incurred subsequent to the date of conveyance for obtaining 'no-objection certificate'. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the decree of the Court below is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the first respondent-State of Karnataka as the State, in our opinion, was an unnecessary party as held by the Court below and has been unnecessarily impleaded in this appeal. We fix the costs of respondent-1 at Rs. 250 in this appeal. --- *** --- .