N M J RAJARAJAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second claimant Jambunathan suffered an ex parte decree in L.A.O.P.No.66 of 1989 on 18.02.1988. The first claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount involved in the matter as per the decree passed in the land acquisition original proceedings. It is found that the second claimant had also passed away on 16.03.1997. The revision petitioner claiming to be the son of the second claimant and also claiming to be entitled to the amount involved in the above said land acquisition original proceedings as the legatee of the Will executed by his father and further stating that while going through the materials of his father in the bureau during 2001, he had come across a loose sheet containing the reference about the land acquisition original proceedings and further according to him, on enquiry about the same with his Advocate Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana and thereafter, on verification of the records concerned, he had come to understand that an ex parte decree has been passed against his father, namely, the second claimant in the proceedings and hence, according to him, the delay of 4960 days had occurred in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the above said delay, he has preferred I.A.No.84 of 2004. Similarly, as there was a delay in setting aside the abatement and to record him as the legal representative of the deceased second claimant, he has preferred I.A.No.85 of 2004 to condone the delay of 2043 days pertaining to the same.

(2.) The above said applications were contested by the second respondent / first claimant stating that the applications laid by the revision petitioner are not maintainable either in law or on facts and the revision petitioner has to establish that he is entitled to claim the amount involved in the proceedings as the legatee of the Will said to have been executed by his father and the details of the Will having not been given and the Will having not been established as per law, the revision petitioner is not entitled to claim the reliefs sought for in the applications and further, it is also stated that no cause whatsoever has been given by the revision petitioner to condone the huge and inordinate delay and the cause also has not been substantiated by him with acceptable materials and therefore, the applications preferred by him are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) It is found that the revision petitioner, in support of his case, has examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 and P2 and no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of the respondents.