Quantum of damges to be determined after considering the evidence of record.

AR.Lakshmanan, J.

The defendant in O.S. No.579 of 1984 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant in this appeal.

2. The suit was initially filed by one P.Nirmala as an indigent person in O.P. No.46 of 1983. The said P.Nirmala is the wife of the 1st respondent and mother of respondents 2 to 5. Leave was granted to her to sue as an indigent person. P.Nirmala died before the suit was taken on file. Hence, her legal representatives viz., her husband and four children, who are the respondents herein, were brought on record in O.P. No.46 of 1983 itself. The respondents herein also sought for permission to sue as indigent persons. Leave was granted to them also to sue as indigent persons. Thereupon, O.P. No.46 of 1983 was converted as O.S. No.579 of 1984.

3. The suit was prosecuted by the plaintiffs on the following pleadings. The deceased plaintiff Nirmala wanted to start a bus body building industry under the name and style of M/s.Cholan Industries by availing financial assistance by way of loan to an extent of Rs.2.88 lakhs from the Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PIPDIC). In this regard, the deceased plaintiff P.Nirmala’s husband viz., the 1st respondent herein, who happened to be a good friend of the defendant/ appellant, approached the latter for a lease of his land to start the industry. The defendant, with a view to help his friend, agreed to give on lease a small

piece of his land on a low rent of Rs. 1,000 per annum, that too for a period of ten years without any increase of rent. In furtherance of the same, Ex.A-1 lease deed dated 28. 1981 was executed by the defendant in favour of the deceased plaintiff in respect of the following lands:

(i) Cadastre No. 148/7/8/1, 148/7/8/2, 148/5/8/2 pt = R.S.No.120/2 = 75 Kuzhies.

(ii)Cadastre No. 147,147bis(part) = R.S.No.l20/9 = 50 Kozhies.

Both items put together, 1 Kani, 25 Kuzhies and O Vizam, out of which one Kani only on the southern side, the boundaries are:

West of Sankaralingam’s land,

South of Kannan and four others land,

North of Villupuram Road,

East of Jainabi’s land, Since the above lease deed was to be in force for ten years, the said deed was also duly registered.

4. The deceased plaintiff applied for a loan from PIPDIC on the strength of Ex. A-1, Ex.A-6 letter of no objection dated 9. 1981 said to have been given by the defendant to PIPDIC, and the mortgage deed Ex.A-21 dated 7. 1982 executed by the deceased plaintiff Nirmala in favour of PIPDIC. Even though the defendant had only leased out the lands aforementioned for a period often years on an annual rent of Rs. 1,000 the deceased plaintiff had executed Ex.A-21 dated 7. 1982 in favour of PIPDIC mortgaging not the leasehold interest but the entire land itself, as security for the repayment of the loan of Rs.2.88 lakhs to be advanced by PIPDIC to the deceased plaintiff, as evidenced by Ex.A-7 dated 6. 1982.

5. The deceased plaintiff, in the meantime,started putting up construction for the purpose of her proposed industry. She had constructed about ten pillars and partition walls for a room, as seen from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The defendant was away from Pondicherry at the time of construction. When he returned to his village, he realised that the construction was put up not on the leasehold land but on the neighbouring other land also owned by the defendant. Hence, the defendant objected to the construction and asked the deceased plaintiff to stop further construction. He also sent Ex.A-8 letter dated 210. 1982 through his advocate to PIPDIC informing them that the deceased plaintiff had put up construction not on the leasehold land but on the other lands of the defendant. In that letter the defendant further requested the PIPDIC to defer granting of licence to the deceased plaintiff pending adjudication of the dispute. The PIPDIC wrote Ex.A-10 letter dated 11. 1982 to the deceased plainti