JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular First Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 17.9.2005 rendered by learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 17/2003. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,40,000/-. According to him, appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants' for convenience sake) were engaged in the construction of Hydro Power Project Baspa-II. During the course of erection of towers and laying wires, defendants extensively damaged the property of the people of the area. Fruit bearing trees were damaged. Plaintiff was owner-in-possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 366 and 487 situate in Mauza Basara, Pargana Sarahan, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. 64 fruit bearing trees were standing on the suit land. These were completely /partially damaged. Gharat of the plaintiff was also damaged. Defendants did not make payment of adequate compensation. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, suit was not maintainable under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, read with Sections 94, 95 and 97 of the Electricity Act, and further the provisions of Indian Telegraphs Act and Indian Electricity (Supply) Act. Work was executed by its agent M/s Larson and Toubro Ltd. Construction Group. They have made payment of Rs. 33,800/- to the plaintiff. Larson and Toubro Ltd. Construction Group was required to be added as party. It was admitted by the defendants that they have undertaken construction activity and land of the plaintiff was involved. Factum of the suit land having come to the plaintiff in a private partition was denied. Adequate and just compensation was paid to the plaintiff, by Larson and Toubro Ltd. Construction Group and the defendants, which was received by him as per the valuation criteria for fruit bearing trees in HP. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Learned District Judge framed the issues and decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 17.9.2005. Hence, this Regular First Appeal. 5. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the learned District Judge has ignored Ext. DW-2/A to Ext. DW-2/G and Ext. DX, whereby plaintiff has already received compensation amount. He then contended that statement of PW-2 B.S. Bajwa, has been wrongly relied upon by the learned Court below. 6. Hence, this Regular First Appeal. 5. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the learned District Judge has ignored Ext. DW-2/A to Ext. DW-2/G and Ext. DX, whereby plaintiff has already received compensation amount. He then contended that statement of PW-2 B.S. Bajwa, has been wrongly relied upon by the learned Court below. 6. PW-1 Misoo Ram deposed that he was exclusively in possession of the suit land. He had developed the land and planted apple trees. Defendants laid HT lines through his land and caused damage to 66 apple trees. In his cross-examination, he deposed that damage was caused to the apple plants by the defendants in March, 2001. He has got damage assessed from B.S. Bajwa in April, 2003. Defendants had also inspected the orchard. The Specialist deputed by the defendants had not done assessment in his presence. He was paid Rs. 6,905/- by the defendants in lieu of damages. He has admitted payment received by him vide receipt Ext. DX from the defendants. Defendants have made payment for the damage vide receipt Ext. DX. He has not informed the defendants about the inspection done by the B.S. Bajwa. B.S. Bajwa has not inspected the orchard in dispute in the presence of the defendants. He has not got damage to the orchard assessed from Horticulture experts. 7. PW-2 B.S.Bajwa deposed that he has done M.Sc. Horticulture from Punjab University in 1967. He was appointed as Horticulture Officer in 1965 Thereafter he was appointed as District Horticulture Officer in 1974. He has carried out the assessment of the orchard of the plaintiff in 2003 and had furnished his report Ext. PW-2/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has relied upon Harbans Formula in carrying out assessment. He had applied production cost of fruit. In 1966 production cost of appeal fruit was not known to him. According to him, pamphlet Ext. DY was erroneous and was not realistic and he did not apply basic value of apple tree. 8. PW-3 Atma Ram deposed that he was Up Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gopalpur from 1996 to 2000. He had seen orchard of the plaintiff. While laying HT line, defendants have caused damage to the orchard. Damage has been caused while erecting towers. 9. PW-4 Kamal Singh deposed that he has seen the holding through which HT line of Baspa Hydro Project is passing. Apple trees were damaged. He had seen orchard of the plaintiff. While laying HT line, defendants have caused damage to the orchard. Damage has been caused while erecting towers. 9. PW-4 Kamal Singh deposed that he has seen the holding through which HT line of Baspa Hydro Project is passing. Apple trees were damaged. Defendants have also dumped earth while raising retaining wall. In his cross-examination, he could not narrate area of plaintiff Misoo Ram in which damage was caused. 10. DW-1 Hira Singh has proved agreements Ext. DW- 1/A and Ext. DW-1/B. 11. DW-2 KBR Dubey led evidence by filing affidavit. According to his examination-in-chief, plaintiff has been paid a sum of Rs. 33,800/- as full and final payment. He and Shri S.K. Mitra were also present on 18.10.2001. He has tendered Ext. DW-2/A to Ext. DW-2/G and Ext. DW-2/H. 12. DW-3 S.K. Mitra has led evidence by filing affidavit. He corroborated the statement of DW-2, K.B.R. Dubey. According to him, plaintiff has received full and final payment through cheques without any protest. He has proved Ext. DW-3/A and also document Ext. DW-2/A to Ext. DW-2/G and Ext. DW-2/H. 13. DW-4 Shri S.S. Mehta also led evidence by filing affidavit. He deposed that the department of Horticulture has constituted a committee on revised Harbans formula to make it more realistic. While calculating final compensation formula given in para-6 of the affidavit has been taken into consideration. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has passed B.Sc. Horticulture from UHF Solan in 1993. He was recruited as Horticulture Officer in the Department of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh in 1973. At the time of the spot inspection, assessment work, plaintiff was present and village Patwari was also present. 14. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to Ext. DX. Plaintiff while appearing as PW-1 has admitted receipt Ext. DX. It has come in the evidence as discussed herein that the plaintiff was paid final compensation and he has received the same in the presence of DW-2 KBR Dubey and DW-3 S.K. Mitra. It is also duly established from Ext. DW-2/A to Ext. DW-2/G that the plaintiff has received the amount of compensation towards damages of crop on 28.2.2001, 18.2.2001, 25.2.2001, 2.3.2001, 18.2.2001, 26.2.2001 and again on 26.2.2001. Once plaintiff has received full and final settlement of compensation for damages, present suit filed by the plaintiff was not at all maintainable. It is also duly established from Ext. DW-2/A to Ext. DW-2/G that the plaintiff has received the amount of compensation towards damages of crop on 28.2.2001, 18.2.2001, 25.2.2001, 2.3.2001, 18.2.2001, 26.2.2001 and again on 26.2.2001. Once plaintiff has received full and final settlement of compensation for damages, present suit filed by the plaintiff was not at all maintainable. This material aspect has been overlooked by the learned District Judge while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was estopped from filing suit after receiving full and final payment. Plaintiff has been paid due and admissible compensation for the damage caused to his apple trees while erecting HT transmission lines from Karchham to Jhakri. Plaintiff ought to have disclosed that he has received full and final compensation, in the plaint. He has suppressed material facts. Plaintiff has received compensation without any reservation or any protest. He was estopped from instituting suit for recovery of damages. Plaintiff in his replication has also not denied the fact that he has received a sum of Rs. 33,800/-. Photocopies of the document were marked and exhibited in evidence. No objection was raised at the time of marking and exhibiting the documents. In all the receipts as discussed herein above, it has been proved that amount has been paid as compensation as final settlement towards damage to the apple trees while laying transmission lines. Plaintiff has received Rs. 6,905/- from the defendant and Rs. 33,800/- from the Larson and Toubro Ltd. Construction Group. 15. Trial Court has gravely erred in discarding testimonies of defendants witnesses. 16. In view of the discussion and analysis as made herein above, the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2005 rendered by learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 17/2003, is set aside. Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. 17. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.