ADYATMA CHINA BATTAR Vs. IRAGAVARAPU KONDAMARHARYULN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. One Narasimhacharyulu, one of the land holders of Kayapuram Agraharam, executed a promissory note dt. 16-3-1957 in favour of the appellant herein for a sum of Rs. 1502-8-9 Rayapuram Agraharam was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act and advance compensation of Rs. 2450/-was deposited on 7-7-59 and another sum of Rs. 1955/- as advance compensation was deposited on 10-3-1960. On the eve of such deposit, Narasimhacharyulu, and the appellant herein entered into an agreement dt. 2-1-1959 (Exhibit B, 12). Under the argreement Narasimhacharyulu stated that the appellant should receive the entire principal and interest which should 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 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 1951 claiming the sum due to him for Narasimhicharyulu Narasimhacbaryulu died during the pendency of that apllication and the respondents 1 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 details of the various other landholders of Rayapuram Agraharam.

(3.) After the death of Narasimhacharyulu, the respondents 1 and 2 herein and other landholders tiled a petition T.O.P. No, 27 of 1963, for payment of compensation in them. The appellant herein filed a petition dt. 17-12-1963 (I. A. Mo. 325 of 1963) to implead him as a party in that T. O P. This application was ordered on 2-3-64. He claimed that the amount due to him under the promissory note dt. 16-3-1957 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 Compensatition 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 Mr, Babu on behalf of the appellant contends that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the petition on the ground that had been filed beyond six months after the compensation was deposited as it had discretion to condone the delay in filing the application, The appellant, however, while filing I. A. No. 325 of 1963 on 17-12-1963, more than three years after the second deposit of compensation, did not specifically request that the tribunal should com done the delay in his making the claim, It is not therefore permissible for him to urge that the tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the petition.