( 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. 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. 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 th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document