SANKARARU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Matom owns considerable larded property. This case concerns properties situate in the Neyyattinkara Taluk. Thiruppuvarom (see travancore Land Revenue Manual, Vol. III, Part I, Chap. 12, page 515, travancore State Manual Vol. III, page 221,16 T. L. R. 172 and 22 T. L R. 1 for the meaning of this expression) was payable to the Matom in respect of some of its lands in this taluk. THE Land Revenue Settlement, which was started in that area in about the year 1077 and completed in about the year 1083, omitted to enter this liability. THE registry holder had therefore not to and did not pay this due.

(2.) THE Matom entered into an Udampadi in Makaram 1101 (Ex. R) with Kesava Pillai the 3rd defendant, authorising him to demand and recover from the State the aforesaid Thiruppuvarom, agreeing to remunerate him by a division of the sum realised equally between himself and the Matom. Pursuant to this authority, Kesava Pillai on 19-8-1101 filed a petition before the Tahsildar of the taluk (Ex. A) accompanied by a list of properties (Ex. B) claiming thiruppuvarom in respect of 290 items of land. On even date he issued a notice of suit to the State under section 65 of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure (corresponding to Section 80 of the Indian Code) demanding payment of the aforesaid Thiruppuvarom and intimating that should the matter be not closed within two months next after receipt of the notice, a suit for the recovery of the amount claimed would be filed against the State. On receipt of this notice the State investigated the claim through the Tahsildar. On a preliminary enquiry the claim was discovered to be well-founded to a large but not to the full extent. (See Exs. P. and Q. At this stage the claimant is seen to have filed a statement (Ext. D) giving up that part of the claim which on the tahsildar's enquiry was found against. THE statement shows further that the rate of computation of paddy into money was reduced from 10 to 7 fanams per para. Early orders on this basis are seen solicited. Accordingly the Government passed orders (Ext. E) conceding the Thiruppuvarom to the extent found by the tahsildar payable at the reduced rate of commutation but without interest which had also been claimed. An amount of Rs. 6,315 -26-6 cash was accordingly paid to the 3rd defendant on behalf of the Matom on 18-6-1102 and a receipt obtained (Ex. F ). THE suit was for recovering back a part of the aforesaid sum on the ground that a mistake was committed in the earlier enquiry which was discovered on a subsequent enquiry made by the State which later enquiry revealed that the claim to the extent of Rs. 5,495-22-7 cash was not really due. This amount was therefore sought to be recovered as payment made under a mistake.

(3.) WE heard learned counsel on both sides on issues 10 and 18 first and deferred the rest of the hearing for, if upon those issues, pur opinion be against the respondents, then no further hearing of the case would be necessary.