ADYATMA CHINA BATTAF VENKATACHARYULU Vs. IRAGAVARAPU KONDAMACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Narasimhacharyulu, one of the landholders of Rayapuram Agraharam, executed a promissory note dated 16th March, 1957 in favour of the appellant herein for a sum of Rs. 1,502-8-9. Rayapuram Agraharam was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act and advance compensation of Rs. 2,450 was deposited on 7th July, 1959 and another sum of Rs. 1955 as advance compensation was deposited on 10th March, 1960. On the eve of such deposit, Narasimhacharyulu and the appellant herein entered into an agreement dated and January, 1959 (Exhibit B-12). Under the agreement, Narasimhacharyulu stated that the appellant should receive the entire principal and interest which would be found due as per the promissory note out of the compensation which would be deposited by the Government for having taken over the lands either in cash or in any other manner as and when that is done. He also stated that he would file petitions before the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Tribunal Judge, Visakhapatnam requesting them to pay the compensation amount to the appellant.

(2.) The appellant filed T.O.P. No. 30 of 1961 claiming the sum due to him from Narasimhacharyulu. Narasimhacharyulu died during the pendency of that application and the respondents i and 2 herein viz., his widow and son, were brought on record as his legal representatives. Subsequently, that petition was not pressed and was dismissed. It is stated that the appellant did not press that petition as he did not have the details of the various other landholders of Rayapuram Agranaram.

(3.) After the death of Narasimhacharyulu, the respondents 1 and 2 herein and other landholders filed a petition T.O.P. No. 27 of 1963, for payment of compensation to them. The appellant herein filed a petition dated 17th December, 1963 (I.A. No. 325 of 1963) to implead him as a party in that T.O.P. This application was ordered on and March, 1964. He claimed that the amount due to him under the promissory note dated 16th March, 1957 should be paid over to him from out of the compensation payable to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. This claim was negatived by the Tribunal firstly on the ground that his claim was made more than six months after the deposit of the compensation ; and secondly the debt itself had become barred by the time he filed his petition to implead himself as a party and to pay the amount due to him.