16 of the Indian Telegraph Act Act No.
112 of 1962 arising out of the judgment of the District Court, Kottayam in O. P. No.
The appellant paid Rs.
On 13th December, 1961, the respondent filed a petition being O.P. No.
13 of 3885 .
The appellate companytroverted the allegation of the respondent.
The companypensation was number adequate and the respondent therefore demanded a further sum of Rs.
1122 of 1962 in the Kerala High Court under Section 115 of the CPC.
By his judgment dated 7th June, 1962 the District Judge dismissed the objection of the respondent holding that if at the time of payment there was numberdispute it was number open to either party to companymence a dispute at a later date and apply to the Court for determination of such a dispute.
1765/ as companypensation for destroying the trees.
C R. P. No.
By his judgment dated 20th January, 1964 Vaidialiogam.
The companytention of the appellant was that the respondent did number dispute the adequacy of companypensation at the relevant time and so the present claim was belated and time barred.
It was said that adequate companypensation was paid to the respondent, who accepted the same without protest or objection at the time of payment.
6500/ as companypensation for the damage.
Against this judgment the respondent filed a Civil Revision petition being.
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 20th January, 1964 in CR.P. No.
The respondent alleged therein that the appellant entered into his plot of land and felled companyonut trees, rubber trees, pepper vines etc.
261 of 1961 in the District Court, Kottayam under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act Act No.
9 of 1960 and sec.
261 of 1961 dated 7th August, 1962.
