PADMANABHA PILLAI Vs. SAROJINI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No compensation for improvements was adjudged by the decree no claim for compensation was, in fact, made and for the reasons stated by me in Rahuman Vaidyan v. Abubaker Kunju ( 1963 KLT 1093 ) I do not think that sub-s.(3) of S.5 of Act 29 of 1958 applies so as to enable the executing court to make a determination and vary the decree even if it be, as in this case it is alleged it is, that improvements were effected after the decree. To the reasons there stated I would add this, that the decree of which the sub-section contemplates a variation is obviously a decree in accordance with sub-s.(1) declaring and awarding the compensation found due.

(2.) I allow this appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court requiring the first court to make a determination under S.5 (3) and restore that of the first court declining such a determination with costs throughout.