( 1 ) THE appellant herein, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Secunderabad Division), the defendant in O. S. No. 1038 of 1986, on the file of the m Additional Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad, preferred the present appeal as against the judgment and the degree made in the aforesaid suit dated 20-8-1993 partly decreeing the suit at rs. 60,000/- with future interest at 6% per annum, from the date of decree till the date of realization. ( 2 ) SMT. M. Jyothi Kiran, the learned counsel representing the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, the appellant herein, would maintain that all the records were not placed before the Court and the respondent failed to establish that there was first floor, at the time of compromise in the Lok Adalat in the suit O. S. No. 2604 of 1985 and on a wrong impression and on improper appreciation of the evidence available on record, the said relief was granted and hence the same is liable to be set aside. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the findings recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that in the light of the findings recorded, it is clear that the first floor was in existence even on the date when the matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat and hence the judgment and the Decree passed by the learned Judge are perfectly in accordance with law. ( 4 ) HEARD both the learned Counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court. ( 5 ) THE respondent herein the plaintiff in the suit averred that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the premises bearing no. ( 4 ) HEARD both the learned Counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court. ( 5 ) THE respondent herein the plaintiff in the suit averred that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the premises bearing no. 9-3-474 and 475, situated at Regimental bazar, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as the suit house/property) having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 4-12-1978, and after purchase of the said house, the plaintiff submitted an application together with plan in the year 1983 to the defendant for laying the roof over the said premises, and after waiting for more than one and half a month from the date of her submitting the application for permission, as there was no reply from the defendant, she informed the defendant and started the construction and completed the same long back, strictly following the plan submitted by her. But due to financial difficulties she could not complete the entire construction and when she again started the construction, the defendant issued a notice dated 5-7-1985 under Section 461 of the Hyderabad municipal Corporation Act (in short hereinafter referred to as the Act ) directing the plaintiff to stop the construction. Actually, after expiry of one and half months from the date of receipt of the application for sanction, the construction was started. Thereafter, again the defendants issued another notice dated 16-7-1985 under section 452 of the Act and under the guise of the said notices, the defendants tried to demolish the construction and hence the plaintiff approached the Court and filed a suit in O. S. No. 2604 of 1985, on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City civil Court, Secunderabad for permanent injunction against the defendant herein and obtained injunction. The defendants colluded and acted under the influence of her neighbour one S. Satyanarayana. When the above said suit was pending in the civil Court, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and a compromise memo was filed by the parties herein vide Lok adalat Case No. 53 of 1986 on 25-1-1986. The said suit had been decreed by the first Assistant Judge on 4-2-1986 stating that the construction of the plaintiff should be regularized leveying compounding fee with the requisite plan showing the unauthorized construction/deviation. The said suit had been decreed by the first Assistant Judge on 4-2-1986 stating that the construction of the plaintiff should be regularized leveying compounding fee with the requisite plan showing the unauthorized construction/deviation. Before passing of a decree itself, the ground and first floor of the suit house was completed. After passing the decree, no portion of the ground or first floor of the, suit house had been constructed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff also served a letter dated 25-3-1986, on the Additional Commissioner, Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, Secunderabad along with the plans in triplicate. The roof of the first floor, doors, windows were broken and the partition walls were demolished. The parapet walls of the buildings were also demolished. The wooden doors and windows were broken and the said wood cannot be used; Electrical connection to the first floor and the electrical material therein is also broken. The stair case railing, and the plumber work of the rooms were damaged. The total loss caused to the plaintiff is more than Rs. 1,00,000/- as estimated by a registered valuer of the government M/s. Siva Shankar Associates, architects and Engineers, who filed the report. Hence, the suit for recovery of rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages. ( 6 ) THE appellant herein is the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad filed the written statement denying the allegations. The specific stand had taken is that the plaintiff is trying to mix up both the building applications submitted separately on 24-3-1983 and in fact she notified the defendant for change of roof on 23-7-1983 and the defendant s office filed letter dated 5-5-1983 and accordingly she submitted the revised plans, but the permission was refused through its letter dated 25-8-1983. In the reply of the plaintiff dated 29-8-1983 she requested the defendant office to send her case to the Government for relaxation of the regulation and the defendant office in letter dated 16-9-1983 advised her to seek relaxation from the Secretary to government, Housing, Municipal Administration department, Government of Andhra pradesh. Till the said date, the plaintiff did not start the construction, later the plaintiff resorted to unauthorized construction without notifying to the Commissioner under the Act. Therefore, notices were issued to the plaintiff under the Act. Till the said date, the plaintiff did not start the construction, later the plaintiff resorted to unauthorized construction without notifying to the Commissioner under the Act. Therefore, notices were issued to the plaintiff under the Act. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff filed the suit against it and obtained injunction in O. S. No. 2604 of 1985 and the Lok Adalat compromised the same in case No. 53 of 1986 to the extent of ground floor only. Further, in the lok Adalat, it is clearly prescribed that the plaintiff shall not make any further constructions without specified permission of m. C. H. in anticipation of compounding. Therefore, the Corporation has every right to remove the first floor construction, which was started in the month of April 1986, and it is denied that at the time of Lok Adalat compromise, the first floor existed. ( 7 ) ON the strength of the pleadings the following issues were settled before the lower Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff violated the Lok adalat compromise decree in o. S. No. 2604 of 1985? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim? 3. To what relief ? ( 8 ) P. W. 1 was examined and Exs. A. 1 to A. 3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff i. e. the respondent herein and d. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B. 1 to B. 5 were marked on behalf of the defendant i. e. the appellant herein. ( 9 ) THE Trial Court answered the issues commencing from Para-6 upto Para-9 of its judgment and ultimately decreed the suit partly granting Rs. 60,000/- with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Hence, the appeal. ( 10 ) THE following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the findings recorded by the trial Court relating to the fact that the Lok Adalat compromise decree in O. S. No. 260 of 1985 had been violated are in accordance with law or to- be disturbed in any way? (ii) If so to what relief the parties are entitled to? ( 11 ) POINT No. (i): The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant for the purpose of convenience. (ii) If so to what relief the parties are entitled to? ( 11 ) POINT No. (i): The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendant for the purpose of convenience. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit house and after purchase of the same she submitted application for permission for laying the roof over the said premises along with the plan for the year 1983 to the defendant and inasmuch as there was no reply she commenced construction and the defendant issued a notice under Section 461 of the Act on 5-7-1985 and also issued further notice under Section 452 of the Act on 16-7-1985. Consequent thereupon she filed suit O. S. No. 2604 of 1985, on the file of the I-Additional Judge, City Civil courts, Secunderabad and obtained injunction against the defendant and the said case was referred to the Lok Adalat in Case no. 53 of 1986 in which it was agreed that the constructions made by the plaintiff to be regularized by compounding by the defendant. However, subsequent thereto at the instigation of the neighbour, the defendant had dismantled her first floor portion. Hence the claim for damages. ( 12 ) THE stand taken by the defendant is that at the time of the Lok Adalat proceedings, the first floor was not in existence and after verification, it was found that the first floor was constructed in violation of the Building Laws and hence the same was demolished. The son of plaintiff who was examined as P. W. 1 had deposed about all the details and also deposed that the loss sustained by them because of the demolition would be Rs. 1,00,000/- and the same was valued by the registered valuer by name Shiv Shankar Rao. All the factual aspects had been discussed in detail. No doubt, as against the evidence of p. W. 1, there is evidence of DWs. 1 and 2. Exs. A. 1 to A. 3 were marked through P. W. 1. Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 the notices and Ex. A. 3 the Assessment Report. The said Shiv shankar Rao was not examined. Ex. A2 is the notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. DWs. 1 and 2, the Section Officer and the Assistant City Planner had deposed about Exs. Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 the notices and Ex. A. 3 the Assessment Report. The said Shiv shankar Rao was not examined. Ex. A2 is the notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. DWs. 1 and 2, the Section Officer and the Assistant City Planner had deposed about Exs. B. 1 to B. 4 and in sum and substance, the stand taken by them is that at the time of Lok Adalat proceedings, the first floor was not in existence at all and hence it cannot be said that the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad acted in deviation of the same. Ex. A. 2 is the legal notice wherein all the details had been specified. Ex. B1 is the copy of the affidavit of plaintiff filed in I. A. No. 610 of 1985 in O. S. No. 2604 of 1985. Ex. B2 is the representation given by the plaintiff requesting to regularize the unauthorized structures made by her along with plans of her premises in duplicate as per the terms entered into at the reference of Lok Adalat, Ex. B3 is the plan in which both the first and second floors were shown. ( 13 ) THE evidence of DWs. 1 and 2 had been appreciated in detail and a clear finding had been recorded that in the light of the documents, the contention of M. C. H. , that the first floor was not in existence on the date of compromise before the Lok adalat, cannot be accepted. Eventually, it appears that at the instance of neighbour the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad had resorted to this action, which is definitely in violation of the terms and conditions agreed upon before the Lok Adalat by the parties. Hence, in this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge had arrived at correct conclusion in recording a finding that the first floor was in existence as on the date of the compromise between the parties before the Lok Adalat and the said finding is hereby confirmed. Though a claim of rs. 1,00,000/- had been made, Rs. 60,000/- had been awarded. It is no doubt true that Ex. A. 3, assessment report of the valuer had been marked, but none had been examined. Though a claim of rs. 1,00,000/- had been made, Rs. 60,000/- had been awarded. It is no doubt true that Ex. A. 3, assessment report of the valuer had been marked, but none had been examined. Taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances, the Trial court arrived at a conclusion that fixing the quantum of Rs. 60,000/- by way of damages would be just and proper. Inasmuch as the registered valuer was not examined, this court is of the opinion that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, rs. 40,000/- by way of damages would be just and proper. ( 14 ) POINT No. (ii): In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed decreeing the suit to a tune of rs. 40,000/- by way of damages with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. It is needless to say that the amount already paid by the appellant may be given due credit to since it is stated that the same had been paid in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is partly allowed, decreeing the suit to an extent of rs. 40,000/- with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. No order as to costs.