Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 801 (KAR)

NEELAPPA v. BANAPAYYA

2001-10-19

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2001
D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-8-2000 passed in LAC No. 382 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Civil judge (Senior Division), Bijapur. ( 2 ) THE LAC had resulted in the award of compensation of a sum of rs. 4,78,882/- in favour of the landowner. It is in the apportionment of this compensation amount disputes arose as between the petitioner and the first respondent. It appears, this dispute ultimately was resolved in ufa. No. 520 of 1994 as per the compromise decree dated 12-8-1998 passed by this Court. ( 3 ) THE salient features of the compromise as recorded under the said compromise decree are as under:"1. The plaintiff to the suit hereby gives up all his claims and contentions raised in the suit and agrees to accept the position as it prevailed on the date of institution of the suit, having regard to the stipulations below. 2. The parties to the suit hereby agree and accept that the defendant 1, namely, Digambar Math of Kolhar has not ceased to exist and that the second defendant, namely, Banapayya Guru Kallappayya digambar Math is lawfully constituted Mahanth of the said defendant 1-Math. The parties further agree that the adoption of his son as 'mari' to the said defendant 1-Math is valid and legal. 3. That pursuant to the practice followed all along of using substantial portion of the income derived from the suit schedule property for the private purpose of the Mahanth and the remaining portion thereof for the Management and maintenance of the Math shall be continued. The Mahanth shall be under obligation to carry the normal duties and hold festivals as before. 4. The Mahanth of the 1st defendant shall alone be entitled to own. hold, possess and enjoy all the suit schedule properties and to receive the amount of compensation payable in respect of the acquired properties including the amount in dispute. This right of the Mahanth is subject to payment to the plaintiff-appellant of the sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and forty thousand only) out of the amount of compensation in view of the fact that the guru of the second defendant had sold the properties alleged to be that of the Hebbi family for acquiring one of the suit schedule properties as in Ex. 3,40,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and forty thousand only) out of the amount of compensation in view of the fact that the guru of the second defendant had sold the properties alleged to be that of the Hebbi family for acquiring one of the suit schedule properties as in Ex. D. 10, and also for legal necessity. 5. The parties to the suit agree that the plaintiff shall be entitled to be paid and to receive a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and forty thousand only) in all out of the amount of compensation, for the reason stated above, in respect of his claim in the suit, now in deposit in Trial Court and Land Acquisition Court (The Second Additional Civil Judge Court, Bijapur ). Consequently, it is requested that the said Courts be directed to make the payments of the amount Rs. 3,40,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and forty thousand only) to the plaintiff-appellant and the remaining amount to defendant 2, respondent 2 respectively. 6. Neither the plaintiff nor defendants 4 to 9 including the legal representatives of deceased defendant 9 shall have any right or claim whatsoever, in the suit properties either directly or indirectly except to the extent mentioned above. The parties to the suit are bound by the terms of this compromise and in recognition thereof have subscribed their respective signatures to this compromise petition". ( 4 ) IT is in the context of the understanding and implementing Clause 4 of the above compromise terms that dispute arose and the petitioner who was entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- under this compromise had put forward a claim before the Reference Court while disbursing the compensation amount that he is entitled for interest on this amount and the order disallowing such a claim is the subject-matter in the above civil revision petition. ( 5 ) SRI Umesh R. Malimath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has made very forceful and vehement submission that even as per the compromise decree the petitioner is entitled to claim interest on the sum of Rs. 3,40,000/ -. Submits that in fact it was at the instance of the petitioner that the compensation amount had come to be deposited in a bank to earn interest, whereas earlier the amount was in deposit in court which would not have yielded any interest. 3,40,000/ -. Submits that in fact it was at the instance of the petitioner that the compensation amount had come to be deposited in a bank to earn interest, whereas earlier the amount was in deposit in court which would not have yielded any interest. Further, that the word 'compensation' always connotes a particular concept in the sense that the amount payable always carries interest under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act and the sum of Rs. 3,40,0007- awarded to the petitioner though part of the compromise decree, but being part of the compensation, it necessarily has to carry interest. The petitioner as a matter of right was entitled to claim interest on this sum and the Reference court is totally in error in rejecting the claim for interest. ( 6 ) SRI B. S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the compromise decree is very clear in its terms and the amount of Rs. 3,40,0007- was payable from the amount of compensation and this sum is a specific fixed sum and in fact the court was aware as on the date of passing of the order and as on the date when the parties entered into compromise that the amount in deposit had already earned interest up to the date and notwithstanding the parties having not mentioned any terms with regard to the interest that had accrued and the compromise specifically stating that out of the total compensation, which in fact includes interest on the total deposit of rs. 4,78,882/-, a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- was payable and accordingly the petitioner was not entitled to anything more than Rs. 3,40,000/- from out of the amount that was payable to the parties as on the date of the compromise decree, namely, as on 12-8-1998. ( 7 ) I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel and i have also perused the order of the Reference Court and the terms of the compromise that was entered into and the decree in R. F. A. No. 520 of 1994. On a reading of Clause 4 of the terms of the compromise, it is very clear that what was to be paid was only Rs. 3,40,0007- from out of the total compensation. If that is so, the question of paying interest on this amount does not arise. On a reading of Clause 4 of the terms of the compromise, it is very clear that what was to be paid was only Rs. 3,40,0007- from out of the total compensation. If that is so, the question of paying interest on this amount does not arise. Though several dimensions of problems are sought to be placed before the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and it was submitted that denying of interest on this amount of Rs. 3,40,0007- is not only opposed to the settled principle under the land Acquisition Act but also totally unfair to the petitioner. It is not open to this Court to go back on the compromise decree and the question of further interpretation of the compromise decree does not arise. It is also not the case that the compromise terms are not clear and calls for any interpretation. In this view of the matter, the submission that the amount of Rs. 3,40,0007- should be paid with interest from the date of deposit of the amount cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made an alternative submission that the amount under the compromise decree having become payable as on the date of the said decree, namely, as on 12-8- 1998, the amount becomes due to the petitioner as on that date and as the amount was in fact paid to the petitioner only later, the petitioner is definitely entitled for claiming of interest on the sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- from this date i. e. , 12-8-1998. The submission of the learned Counsel appears to be quite reasonable. The amount under the compromise becoming due to the petitioner on the date of the compromise decree, it is just and fair that thereafter any interest that is earned on this amount in deposit should enure to the benefit of the petitioner and not to any other person. Though this is not an aspect which was raised before the reference Court nor had been raised before this Court, this being put forth as a lesser claim than the full claim that is agitated on behalf of the petitioner and as such the same is taken note of by this Court and it is ordered that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the deposit amount to the extent of interest payable on a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- from the date of the compromise decree i. e. , 12-8-1998 up to the date of actual payment of this sum. ( 9 ) TO this extent the order of the lower Court is modified and the revision petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The reference Court may take steps to disburse the balance of the amount to the parties as per the claims under the compromise decree without any further delay. --- *** --- .