The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegal demolition of the plaintiffs' poultry farm by the Housing Co-operative Society and the meticulous consideration of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

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 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