- (1.)This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Nagercoil dated 19th Karkitakam 1117. Plaintiff in the court below is the appellant before us. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the appellant, the Travancore Sirkar, to recover from the estate of the deceased first defendant in the suit. One Perumal Pillai Bhagavathi Pillai, an amount of 432 rupees 11 chuckrams and 3 cash alleged to have been wrongly paid to him in certain land acquisition proceedings and interest thereon. The learned Judge of the court below holding "that plaintiff had not pleaded or made out any ground for legal remedy and ............ that plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount, dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.
(2.)It is necessary to state here how the alleged mistaken payment came to be made by the Sirkar. One Vallinayagam Ponnambalam who was the uncle of the deceased first defendant Bhagavathi Pillai was the owner and pattadar of Sy. Nos. 2504 and 2402 of Vadiveeswaram Pakuthi. These two survey numbers lying together and measuring 1 acre and 43 cents in extent, were usufructuarily mortgaged by Ponnambalam in favour of one Venkitasubha Iyen Narayana Iyen of Puthenchanthai, Trivandrum. The mortgagee was also put in possession of the mortgaged properties. Some time after the execution of the said mortgage the pattadar Ponnambalam died leaving Bhagavathi Pillay as his heir. In the year 1101 a portion of Sy. No. 2504 measuring 23 cents was acquired by Sirkar for the construction of a tank. In L.A. Case No. 1/1101 on the file of the Diwan Peishkar of Trivandrum the Land Acquisition Officer by his award, Ext. B, dated 27.3.1101 fixed the compensation payable on account of the acquisition as Rs. 376 plus 15 per cent thereon and directed payment of the same to the deceased Bhagavathi Pillai as the jenmi of the property, rejecting the claim put forward by Narayana Iyen for payment of the compensation amount to him as the mortgagee of the acquired site. After the passing of that award the deceased first defendant Bhagavathi Pillai received payment from Sirkar on 9.5.1101 of an amount Rs. 492-11-3 on account of the compensation allowed to him under the award. Subsequent to the disbursement of the compensation money Narayana Iyen who had claimed enhanced compensation and also payment to him of the compensation amount moved the Land Acquisition Officer by a petition dated 22nd Makaram 1101 to make a reference to the District Court. Consequently there was a reference to court and that reference was duly registered in the District Court of Nagercoil as Land Acquisition Reference No. 1 of 1102. The District Judge by his judgment and decree dated 30th Adi 1102 (vide Exts. C and D) allowed the claim for enhanced compensation and also upheld the right of Narayana Iyen to receive the entire compensation amount. Under the decree Sirkar became liable to pay the mortgagee Narayana Iyen the amount already paid over to the first defendant as well as the excess compensation awarded. The entire amount payable under the decree in L.A.R. No. 1/1102 was subsequently realised by Narayana Iyen from Sirkar. Thereafter the suit giving rise to this appeal, O.S. No. 81 of 1111 on the file of the District Judge of Nagercoil, was filed by Sirkar claiming a refund of the amount paid to the first defendant on 9.5.1101.
(3.)The question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation amount drawn by the first defendant in pursuance of the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in L.A. No. 1/1101 could be deemed to be an amount paid to him by the appellant Sirkar under a mistake and that is the only question argued before us by the learned Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the Sirkar.