L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.403 of 1997 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad are the appellants. The deceased 1st respondent (sole plaintiff) filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs.6,24,277/-as compensation for the land admeasuring 162.15 square yards, situated at Lalapet, Secunderabad with the boundaries mentioned therein and for a sum of Rs.45,000/-towards damages. A further prayer was made to declare that the document, dated 26.02.1996, insofar as it recorded the alleged undertaking of the 1st respondent, as unenforceable and nonest in law.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

The plaintiff is the owner of the premises bearing No.12-14-23, Lalapet, Secunderabad. He submitted an application way back in the year 1987 for permission, to construct a house. After prolonged correspondence, the defendants rejected the application through order, dated 01.02.1986, by citing certain reasons. By that time, a proposal was existing for construction of a road over bridge in the area connecting Moulali and Tarnaka. The site of the plaintiff abuts the proposed road over bridge.

On submission of an undertaking to the effect that the plaintiff would surrender about 162 square yards, free of cost, permission was accorded on 26.02.1996. The plaintiff filed the suit stating inter alia that the defendants have not acquired the land that is needed for construction of road over bridge and no benefit of additional Floor Space Index (F.S.I.) was extended to him. He contends that having rejected the application on 01.02.1986, on the ground that the sub-division was not properly mentioned, the defendants started insisting on submission of an undertaking to the effect that he would not claim compensation for the affected land. He submits that the undertaking was extracted almost under coercion by denying permission on totally irrelevant grounds and soon after the permission was granted by incorporating a condition, he made a protest on the next day itself. It was his further case that many persons, whose properties were affected in the construction of road over bride, were extended the benefit of F.S.I. and the same was denied to him.

The defendants filed written statement opposing the suit. According to them, once the plaintiff has given an undertaking to surrender the land, without claiming any compensation, he is not entitled to file the suit claming compensation. They pleaded ignorance about the extension of benefit of additional F.S.I. to the other affected parties. The grounds of estoppel etc., were pleaded.

Through its judgment, dated 15.11.2005, the trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal.

Smt. A. Deepthi, learned Standing Counsel for the defendants, submits that in the permission, marked as Ex.A2, a specific condition to the effect that the plaintiff shall surrender the affected land, was incorporated and once that was done, he is not entitled to claim compensation. She further submits that in case the plaintiff wanted the benefit of additional F.S.I., he ought to have made a request, but was not entitled to ignore the specific condition. She submits that the trial Court committed error not only in awarding compensation, but also determining the amount straightaway.

Sri P. Satyarajababu, learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that as early as on 01.02.1996, the permission was denied only on the ground that the subdivision was not properly mentioned and within weeks thereafter, permission was accorded by extracting an undertaking which is not referable to any law. He submits that in case the widening was as per the master plan, things would have been different. According to him, the land of the plaintiff was taken for road over bridge, and that in respect of similar properties, the defendants have undertaken negotiations with the owners and extended the benefits of additional F.S.I. etc., whereas, in t