Short Note Appellants-Defendants have directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1991 rendered by 9th Addl. District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 9B/88, thereby passing a decree in favour of plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of the illegally recovered unification and development charges with regard to plot No. 1 to 4 situated at 170, RNT Marg, Indore, known as Jhabua Kothi. The facts of the case lying in a narrow compass are that the plaintiff-company purchased four plots from the erstwhile owner of Jhabua Kothi, situated at 170, RNT Marg, Indore bearing plot No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. After the purchase of the said plots, plaintiff wanted to construct a cinema theatre on these plots and for this purpose, an application for unification of plot Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was submitted in the office of the defendant Corporation. Appellant-defendant by Dakhla No. 618 dated 21.5.1972 certified the proposed unification. Thereafter the plaintiff left the idea of constructing the cinema theatre and instead wanted to construct a multi-storied building on all the four plots purchased by him and for this purpose the plaintiff made a request to the defendant for the unification of plot No.1 with plot No.2, 3 and 4 which were already unified as stated above. The defendant Corporation, on receipt of the said request, by its memo No. 940 dated 13.8.1982 directed plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,265.40 p.s. by way of fees for the development and unification of the said plots. The plaintiff made a protest against the said demand of the defendant. But the defendant did not acceded to the protest made by the plaintiff-respondent and insisted for the payment of the development and unification fees as stated above. As the plaintiff had a invested large amount in purchasing the disputed plots and other developments, it was left with no choice but to deposit the said amount to avoid the delay. As such, he deposited the said amount of Rs. 22,265.40 p.s. under protest with the defendant on 14.9.1982. Later on the plaintiff served a notice of demand for the recovery of the illegally recovered alleged development and unification fees by the defendant Corporation together with the interest by way of damages. The defendant did not comply with the notice of demand given by the plaintiff to the defendant corporation. 22,265.40 p.s. under protest with the defendant on 14.9.1982. Later on the plaintiff served a notice of demand for the recovery of the illegally recovered alleged development and unification fees by the defendant Corporation together with the interest by way of damages. The defendant did not comply with the notice of demand given by the plaintiff to the defendant corporation. As such, the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of the alleged illegally recovered development and unification fees of Rs.22,265.40 p.s. together with interest @ 18% p.a. and the notice charges amounting to Rs. 25,300/- in all. The defendant filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments. Appellant-defendant in their written statement have stated that all the seven plots bearing Nos. 1 to 7 of the disputed land were already unified by issuing Dakha No. 895 dated 11.9.1973 and there was no need of permitting unification of plot No. 1 into plot Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The contention of the Corporation is that the plaintiff should have applied for the separation of plot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the alleged plot No.1 to 7 of the disputed Jhabua Kothi situated at 170, RNT Marg, Indore. It is averred that the fees required for permitting separation of the plots was much higher then the fees payable for the unification of the plots and as such with the intention to defraud the Corporation, the plaintiff applied for the unification of the plots in place of permitting separation of the disputed plot Nos. 1 to 4 of the said Jhabua Kothi. The defendants on the aforesaid averments prayed for the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court, on settlement of the issues and evaluation of the evidence produced on behalf of the parties, decreed the plaintiff s suit against the appellants-defendants for the recovery of Rs. 22,305/- together with the future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the filing of the suit till its recovery. Aggrieved, the appellants-defendants have filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and the decree of the trial Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it emerged that the facts stated below are not in dispute for the purpose of this appeal. Aggrieved, the appellants-defendants have filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and the decree of the trial Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it emerged that the facts stated below are not in dispute for the purpose of this appeal. (i) That the total land of Block No. 170 situated at RNT Marg, Indore, popularly known as Jhabua Kothi was permitted to be divided in small seven plots of different size on the request of the original owner of the said Jhabua Kothi, His Highness Shri Ajit Singh with the intention to sell such plots to different persons by Dhakla No. 1, 2, 3 and 7 dated 5.9.1970 (Ex. D-2C). (ii) That after the division of the said Block No. 170 of Jhabua Kothi, plot Nos. 1 to 4 were purchased by respondent-plaintiff and unification of plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was granted by Dakhla No. 618 dated 12.5.1972 (Ex.D-3C) on the request of the plaintiff-respondent. (iii) That subsequently, on 11.9.1973 by Dakhla No. 895 (Ex.D-4C), the unification of all plots Nos. 1 to 7 of the said Jhabua Kothi was sanctioned. (iv) That at the time of unification of plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in 1972 and unification of plots Nos. 1 to 7 in 1973, the requisite unification and development fees was recovered by the Corporation from the concerned persons. Taking into consideration the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is clear that for the first time in the year 1972 the Corporation has recovered unification fees for permitting unification of plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on the request of the respondent plaintiff. It is also clear that in 1973 the Corporation again recovered the unification fees and permitted unification of all the seven plots by issuing Dakhla No. 895 dated 11.9.1973 (Ex. D-4C). From the said facts, it emerged that in 1973. plot No.1 was already united alongwith the plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and also in Plots Nos. 5 to 7. As such, the permission for unification of Plot No.1 in plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the year 1982 was not at all necessary and the appellant-Corporation was not entitled to recover any unification and development fees for unification of Plot No.1 alongwith Plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of Block No. 170, situated at RNT Marg, Indore. As such, the permission for unification of Plot No.1 in plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the year 1982 was not at all necessary and the appellant-Corporation was not entitled to recover any unification and development fees for unification of Plot No.1 alongwith Plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of Block No. 170, situated at RNT Marg, Indore. In view of the foregoing discussions, the unification and the development fees Rs. 22,265.40 p.s. recovered from the' plaintiff under memo No. 940 dated 13.8.1982 was unwarranted, illegal, arbitrary and baseless and the trial Court has committed no error in passing an impugned decree in favour of respondent-plaintiff for the recovery of the said amount together with the future interest. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that as all the seven plots of the disputed property were permitted unification in the year 1973 by Dakhla No. 895 dated 11.9.1973, the plaintiff was guilty of committing fraud for requesting unification of Plot No. 1 into Plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in place of requesting for the separation of the plots Nos. 1 to 4 from the other plots of alleged property of Block No. 170. In this respect, it is pertinent to note that the Corporation is supposed to keep the record of its office upto date and when in the year 1982, plaintiff applied for the unification of plot No.1 in Plots Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the Corporation on the basis of their record, should have rejected the prayer of unification and directed plaintiff to apply for the separation of the plots in question from the other plots of Block No. 170, Jhabua Kothi, situated at RNT Marg, Indore. The defendants cannot take the advantage of its mistake by again taxing the plaintiff and recovering unification fees for the unification of Plot No. 1 which was already permitted unification with the other plots of the Block No. 170 as long as in the year 1973. In view of the facts of the case and the evidence available on the record, I do not find that the trial Court has committed any error in passing an impugned decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the appellants. The judgment and the decree of the trial Court is well founded, based on proper evaluation of the evidence on record and deserves to be upheld. The judgment and the decree of the trial Court is well founded, based on proper evaluation of the evidence on record and deserves to be upheld. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed affirming the judgment and the decree as passed by the trial Court. The appellants shall bear the cost of this appeal and also pay the cost of the respondent. Counsel fee as per schedule is allowed. A decree be draw up accordingly.