NEELAVARNA IYER Vs. SRINIVASA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Thiruvenkatathammal , was possessed of certain in am villages as life estate holder which were taken aver under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948. In respect of those inam villages, advance compensation had been deposited by the State Government under Section 41 of the Act with the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai. On a claim made by the respondent who is the same in all these petitions, On amounts were paid out to him by the Tribunal after due enquiry under S, 53. The claim before the Tribunal by the respondent was that he is entitled to compensation on the basis of a settlement deed executed by the service inam holder, Thiruvenkatathammal.

(2.) Thereafter disputes arose between the respondent -and the petitioner herein as to who is entitled to succeed to the estate held by Thiruvenkatathammal The petitioner claimed that under the Will of Thiruvenkatathammal, he is entitled to succeed to her estate and that the respondent cannot claim any interest on the basis of the alleged settlement deed said to have been executed by her. Since the respondent disputed the claim put forward by the petitioner, the latter filed O.S. 33 of 1962 on the file of the Dist. Munsif's Court, Madurai for a declaration of his right to succeed to the estate of Thiruvenkatathammal on the basis of the will executed by her in his favour. Though the trial court dismissed the suit, there was an appeal against that judgment in A.S. No. 255 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai. In that appeal, the petitioner succeeded in establishing his claim on the basis of the will set up by him to succeed to the estate of 'Thiruvenkatathammal as against the respondent. The respondent took the matter in S.A. No. 830 of 1966 to this court which, however, failed. The result of these proceedings is that the petitioner has been declared as a successor to the estate of Thiruvenkatathammal as against the respondent.

(3.) Subsequent to his succeeding in the civil suit, wherein he got a declaration that he is entitled to succeed to the estate of Thiruvenkatathammal, the petitioner filed four O.Ps. Before the Estates Abolition Tribunal for directions to the respondent to redeposit the amounts earlier withdrawn by him, purporting to be under S. 54-F of the Act read with S. 144 C.P.C. The case -put forward by the petitioner before the Tribunal for redeposit of the sums drawn by the respondent is that he has been declared by the civil court to be entitled to succeed to the estate of Thiruvenkatathammal and that therefore the advance compensation amounts which have been wrongly paid to the respondent should be directed to be redeposited to the credit of 0. P. 691 of 1952. The respondent and the ground that such petitions are not maintainable in law opposed the said petitions. After hearing the arguments of the counsel on the preliminary point as to the maintainability of the petition, the Tribunal held that since it has no power to review its own earlier orders directing payment out of the amounts to the respondents, the petitions for redeposit cannot be maintained. The orders passed by the Tribunal have been challenged in these revision petitions.