BHAGAVATHI KOCHUPARVATHY Vs. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal which arises from an order in execution comes before us on a reference by Velu Pillai, J.

(2.) The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage. The Trial Court in passing a decree for redemption directed that compensation for improvements should be determined by the execution court.

(3.) On 3rd April 1958, the second defendant in the suit applied for determining compensation for improvements. Before the Commissioner who was deputed to do the work inspected the property, the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 29 of 1958, came into force on 24th May 1958. The Commissioner filed his report and the execution court passed an order on 8th November 1958 fixing the value of improvements. The second defendant appealed to the District Court but the appeal was dismissed on 23rd December, 1958. This Second Appeal was filed by him on 22nd June 1959. The only point pressed before Velu Pillai, J , was that compensation for coconut trees was to be assessed on the basis of the tables published by the Government under S.13 of Act 29 of 1958. Velu Pillai, J., was of the opinion that the tables having been published long after the execution court decided the question, valuation of improvements on the basis of the tables could not be resorted to and that the tables would apply only to those cases where such determination was made after the publication of the tables. As a contrary view was taken by Raghavan, J., in Suleikha Ummal v. Sumathy ( 1962 KLT 822 ), the Second Appeal was referred to a Division Bench.