MATHAI THOMAS Vs. VASUDEVAN PILLAI VISWANATHAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these appeals, Mr. Cyrus, learned counsel for the appellants, challenges the decrees and judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mavelikara in L. A. R. Nos. 21/58 and 23/58 respectively, declining to recognise any title or interest in the respective appellants so as to entitle them to claim a share in the compensation amount awarded in proceedings taken under the provisions of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act (XI of 1089).

(2.) A. S. No. 42 of 1960 arises out of the decision rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge in L. A. R. No. 21/58, and the 5th defendant therein is the appellant. Similarly, A. S. 43/60 arises out of the decree and judgment of the learned Judge rendered in L. A. R. No. 23/58, and the 2nd defendant therein is the appellant.

(3.) In view of the dispute that appears to have been raised regarding the title to the properties as well as the right to receive the compensation amount, there was a reference made by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer under S.27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act. There is no controversy before us between learned counsel appearing for the appellant, namely Mr. Cyrus, and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, namely Mr. S. Neelakanta Iyer, that the provisions contained in the Travancore Land Acquisition Act are substantially in accordance with the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894). We are referring particularly to this aspect, because a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Neelakanta Iyer, learned counsel for the respondent, regarding the maintainability of these two appeals in this Court. According to the learned counsel, the question of considering the title of the persons to receive the compensation amount and the proportion in which the compensation amount is to be distributed was necessitated by reference being made to the court by the Land Acquisition Officer under S.27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel, relying upon a decision of our learned brother Joseph, J., reported in Kesava Pillai v. Uzhuthiraru 1964 KLT 643 , urged that in that decision the learned Judge has taken the view that under identical circumstances, when a decision is rendered by a court on reference being made under S.27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, no appeal is maintainable at all. That is in short, the contention of the learned counsel is that the decision rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge is not a decree, and therefore no appeal lies to this Court unless the matter comes under the corresponding provision in the Indian Act, namely S.54. No doubt, Joseph, J., has taken the view that a decision rendered by a civil court, on a reference being made regarding the apportionment of compensation, under S.27 of the Travancore Act, is not an award. If we may say so with respect, to that extent we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge. But the learned Judge has gone further and held that no appeal lies as against such decision rendered by the Civil Court.