THOMAS Vs. E JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal by plaintiff. The only question here is of the manner in which cocoanuts are to be valued for purposes of determining compensation for improvements. The commissioner deputed by the Munsiff to report on the value of improvements on the suit property fixed the value at the average price in the 12 years preceding his inspection of the property, which was in 1958; and that was accepted by the Munsiff. Before the lower appellate Court the appellant produced attested copies of certain records in the Taluk Office, Thiruvalla, showing the price of cocoanuts in the 10 years that preceded the date of the suit, and contended that the price fixed by the commissioner was excessive. The Court rejected the plea on the ground that the cocoanut palms concerned came into existence only after the institution of the suit. Hence this Second Appeal.

(2.) The Commissioner filed his report fixing compensation a month after the commencement of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act (XXIX of 1958), hereinafter called the Act, S.13 and 14 whereof read thus:

(3.) Shri K. C. John submitted that the Munsiff should be directed to adopt the value of produces shown in the table published by the Government in 1961 and cited Bhagavathi Kochuparvathi v. Balakrishna Pillai Chandrasekharan Pillai ( 1963 KLT 711 ) as supporting that submission. In that decision Joseph, J., delivering the judgment of the Court, observed: