JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. This appeal is by the defendant, which is a Housing Co-operative Society. 2. On 19/10/1992, plaintiffs - Smt.Teresa Mendonea and Sri.Alwyn Mendona instituted a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.3, 37, 000.00 with costs and interest @ 18% p.a. It was their case that they were running a poultry farm in the name and style of "M/s Teresa Poultry Farm" and had constructed three sheds for this purpose on the land bearing Sy.Nos.115/5A and 115/1. 3. They contended that they had taken this property on lease from one Sri.V.Sreenivas and had also raised a loan of Rs.55, 000.00 from Vijaya Bank. It was stated that on 20/10/1989, the Society demolished the poultry farm by use of bulldozers and nearly 6000 chickens, poultry equipments, electrical equipments, furniture and fixture were damaged and the complaint was also lodged to the police contending that they had sustained loss of Rs.3, 37, 000.00. 4. They also contended that they had sent a legal notice dtd. 7/10/1992 to the defendant, calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.3, 37, 000.00 and despite this legal notice, there was no response and they were consequently forced to institute a suit. 5. The appellant - defendant entered appearance, but chose not to file a written statement. The second plaintiff was examined as PW1 and 30 documents were exhibited. The second plaintiff was not cross examined by the defendant - Society. 6. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' structures had been illegally demolished by the Society and they had suffered damages on that account. The Trial Court quantified the damages as Rs.1, 25, 000.00 and decreed the suit for the said sum and also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said sum. As against the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this is a fit case for being remanded to the Trial Court, since the appellant did not have an opportunity to contest the proceedings. She sought to contend that the land acquisition records clearly indicated that there were no structures on the land bearing Sy.Nos.115/5A and 115/1 and infact, even in the award in respect of poultry sheds, the claim for compensation was disallowed on the ground that it had been constructed after the preliminary notification. She sought to contend that the land acquisition records clearly indicated that there were no structures on the land bearing Sy.Nos.115/5A and 115/1 and infact, even in the award in respect of poultry sheds, the claim for compensation was disallowed on the ground that it had been constructed after the preliminary notification. She submitted that if an opportunity was granted, the defendant would be able to establish that there was no poultry farm in existence as contended by the plaintiffs and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the decree and contended that the demolition of the structures was made in the year 1989 and despite the notices issued to the Society and also to Vijaya Bank, there had been no response. He highlighted the fact that though the suit was filed in the year 1982 and was pending till 2005, the Society did not chose to contest the proceedings at all and in this view of the matter, the plea of the appellant that the appeal is to be allowed cannot be sustained. 9. On merits, learned counsel contended that the existence of the poultry sheds stood proved by production of electricity bills and also by lodging of the police complaint immediately thereafter. He placed reliance on Ex.P28, in which, Sri.Ramakantha Shetty, the Secretary of the defendant - Society admitted that on 20/10/1989, certain structures existed in the land were demolished and this by itself proved the case of the plaintiffs. He therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be found fault with. 10. As far as the contention of the appellant's counsel that the appellant deserved a remand in order to establish their case is concerned, it is to be noticed that the suit was filed claiming of an illegal demolition effected in the year 1989. It is not in dispute that the notices issued to the Society were not responded to. It is also not in dispute that the suit was filed in the year 1992 and was pending for 13 years and the Society despite having men and resources at its command, did not chose to contest the proceedings for 13 long years. 11. It is not in dispute that the notices issued to the Society were not responded to. It is also not in dispute that the suit was filed in the year 1992 and was pending for 13 years and the Society despite having men and resources at its command, did not chose to contest the proceedings for 13 long years. 11. In my view, having regard to the fact that the defendant is a Society and had men and resources at its command, the prayer made by the appellant that equity demands a remand for adjudication on its merits, cannot be accepted. 12. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, the Trial Court has recorded a clear finding that there were poultry sheds in existence and the same were demolished and the plaintiffs being the tenants have suffered immensely to an extent of Rs.1, 25, 000.00. 13. Ex.P1 indicates that the plaintiffs had taken the property on rent and Ex.P2 indicates that they had obtained an approval of a plan for structure of a dwelling house and the poultry farm from the concerned jurisdictional Grama Panchayath. Exs.P4 to P7 are the receipts for having paid the electricity charges to Karnataka Electricity Board. The plaintiffs have also produced receipt for having purchased the vencob chicks in the year 1989 as per Ex.P15. 14. Exs.P22 to P27 are the photographs indicating the structure which were razed to the ground. Ex.P16 indicates that the plaintiffs had raised a loan of Rs.55, 000.00 by hypothecating the birds, chicks, poultry equipments and poultry sheds with Vijaya Bank. The plaintiffs have produced Ex.P18 which was a communication dtd. 2/11/1989 addressed to the Bank stating that the Society formed by its employees had demolished the poultry sheds on 20/10/1989. Exs.P20 and P21 which are the communication dtd. 11/12/1990 and 19/4/1991 indicate that the plaintiffs had made a demand for recovery of the outstanding loan. It is to be stated here that vide Ex.P17, the Bank had stated the matter of demolition and the compensation for the demolition cannot be laid against the Bank and the Bank had nothing to do with it. 15. The plaintiffs have also produced the complaints that they had lodged to the Deputy Commissioner at Ex.P22, to the Sub-Inspector at Ex.P23 and also to the Governor of Karnataka at Ex.P24. 15. The plaintiffs have also produced the complaints that they had lodged to the Deputy Commissioner at Ex.P22, to the Sub-Inspector at Ex.P23 and also to the Governor of Karnataka at Ex.P24. These documents clearly indicate that the plaintiffs had taken immediate action to lodge the complaints to the jurisdictional authorities about the demolition. 16. On the complaint of the plaintiffs, the Commissioner of Police had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Special Secretary to the Government and a copy of the same is produced at Ex.P28. In the said report, it has been noticed by the Commissioner as under: "Shri P.Ramakantha Shetty, the Secretary, Vijaya Bank Co-operative Housing Society had enquired with the petition and the allegations against the Society. He has stated that they were in possession of land bearing Sy.No.115/5A of Bilikalli from 1/10/1988 and the case against their Society was dismissed by the Supreme Court and they are physical possession of the land along with so many other lands and they were doing development work such was levelling of the land forming of roads since 1/6/1989. And they use to take police protection to avoid untoward incidents. As usually on 20/10/1989 they have carried the work levelling the roads two bull-dozore hired from Agro Industries Corporation and they have removed certain structure existing in the land and they did not demolished any poultry farm as stated by the petitioner. Further, it is ascertained that there is no specific demolition order in favour of Vijaya Bank Society." 17. As could be seen from the above, the Secretary of the Society admitted that certain structures were demolished on 20/10/1989 and that date was the very date on which the plaintiffs had contended that the poultry sheds were demolished. In the light of these documents, the Trial Court was absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that the poultry sheds were demolished without recourse to the due process of law. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, sought to contend that the poultry farms did not exist on the aforementioned lands and even if they did, they were obviously illegal. In the light of the settled law that even a trespasser cannot be dispossessed, except, in accordance with law, the argument of the appellant's counsel that the structures, if any, were illegal and unauthorized and their demolition cannot be found fault with, cannot be accepted. 19. In the light of the settled law that even a trespasser cannot be dispossessed, except, in accordance with law, the argument of the appellant's counsel that the structures, if any, were illegal and unauthorized and their demolition cannot be found fault with, cannot be accepted. 19. The Trial Court had meticulously considered the extent of damages suffered by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court has noticed that the claim of Rs.75, 000.00 at the rate of Rs.5.00 for 6000 chicks were reasonable and so also the sum of Rs.2, 000.00 claimed by them towards costs of medicine and vaccine were also reasonable. 20. The Trial Court has noticed that though a claim of Rs.30, 000.00 was made towards costs of equipments, no evidence was produced to indicate the costs of the equipments lost and therefore, has refused to award compensation on that score. 21. The Trial Court has noticed that a sum of Rs.12, 000.00 was claimed regarding feed stock and husk and has awarded a sum of Rs.10, 000.00. 22. The Trial Court after noticing that the plaintiffs had claimed a sum of Rs.30, 000.00 towards office equipments, farm house, bicycle, furniture, electrical equipment etc., had recorded a clear finding that since the plaintiffs claim that they were the tenants under one Sri.V.Sreenivas, they cannot lay a claim for the loss of farm house and electrical equipments and has rightly rejected the claim of Rs.30, 000.00. 23. The Trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.3, 000.00 towards loss of utensils and other articles and has refused to award a sum of Rs.5, 000.00 claimed towards costs of cages. 24. As far as the claim of Rs.1, 80, 000.00 towards loss of income is concerned, the Trial Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled for loss of income only for a period of six months and has awarded a sum of Rs.30, 000.00. 25. In my view, this assessment of damages and the quantification of the same at Rs.1, 25, 000.00 is just and proper and cannot be found fault with. As a consequence, I find no reason to entertain the appeal and same is rejected.