9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (4) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... li district. These estates were taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Abolition Act-Under the compromise decree, the history of which is given in the decision, Navaneethakrishnaswami Devasthanam v. Rtikmani Co. (1955) 2 M.L.J. 339 the appellant was entitled after payment of certain others to enforce his mortgage decree for payment of his dues.. The estates were notified and taken over under the provisions of the Madras Estates-Abolition Act on 3rd January, 1951. Advance compensation which was deposited by the Government with the Tribunal was paid over to the appellant. Prior to fasli 1362 there were deposits of interim compensation amount under Section 50 -of the Act by the Government. The appellant by way of abundan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would show that the mortgagee of the estate will be one of the persons to whom compensation amount will be payable for the reason that the mortgages would stand wiped out by reason of the taking over of the estate by the Government. In our view Section 50(2) is too clear to require argument. Interim compensation amount will have to be paid to all those persons who would be entitled to be paid under Section 44(1) of the Act, out of the advance compensation amount. It is only on that view that the decision in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Venkatesa Ayyangar (1957)2MLJ341 proceeds further to consider whether a subsequent mortgagee can have those rights.. The learned Judges held that having regard to the scheme of the Act the secured creditor ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on a prior occasion by way of abundant caution attached the amounts through the process of the civil Court. Mr. T.R. Mani appearing for the contesting respondents who have claims for maintenance from and out of the estate raised two contentions in support of the judgment of the Tribunal. The first was-that the decree dated 24th March, 1945, should be held to be barred by limitation by reason of the provisions of Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is however no execution of any decree involved in the case. On the date when the estate was taken over there was a decree the execution of which was not barred by limitation. That being so, the decree-holder will have all the rights of the mortgagee-creditor as on that date. His rights s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded to preclude the Government from taking credit for interim payments towards compensation which they are liable to pay for the taking over of the estate under the provisions of the Act. The two provisions being intended for different purposes cannot be read together in any manner so as to nullify the effect of each other. Learned Counsel then contended that as interim payment is neither advance compensation nor an income (vide the decision in S.R. Sethupathi v. First Additional Income Tax Officer, Karaikudi MANU/TN/0347/1961 : (1962)1MLJ51 it could be regarded only as payment made for the benefit of the mortgagor and the only way by which the appellant could get at the money will be to enforce his decree through the process of civil Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
