SABAPATHY PILLAI Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR PALGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three objections have to be considered in these appeals. The first is that Sabhapathi Pillai, one of the appellants in one of these appeals, is not entitled to file the appeal as he was not a party to the land acquisition references before the lower court; the second objection is that the appellants should file six different appeals against the six references; and the third objection is that the court fee paid in the appeals is not correct.

(2.) An anicut and a canal system belonged to a joint Hindu family consisting of four brothers, of which Venkitachalam Pillai was the eldest. The anicut and the canal system were acquired in six different stages six different portions of the system were acquired on six different dates. Venkitachalam Pillai, the eldest brother, obtained six references in these acquisitions to the Subordinate Judge. But, at the time of hearing, the Subordinate Judge consolidated all the references into one and fixed a value of Rs. 52,009.40 for the entire system. Against two awards by the Collector, two of the other brothers also obtained references to the Subordinate Judge. However, since all the six references were consolidated, the Subordinate Judge did not pass any order on these references separately. The Subordinate Judge, though he fixed Rs. 52,009.40 p. as. the value of the entire anicut and canal system, awarded only a fourth of the amount to Venkitachalam Pillai saying that it was only he that obtained the references to the Subordinate Judge. Against this decision one appeal has been filed by the three brothers, impleading Venkitachalam Pillai as a respondent. The other two appeals have been filed by the two brothers who obtained references against two awards, on which the Subordinate Judge din not pass separate orders. Thus the three appeals. In these appeals, the court fee paid by the appellants is under Schedule.2 Art.3(iii)(A)(i)(a) of the Kerala Court Fees Act as if the appeals are against orders not provided for by S.31 of the Act. The objection against court fee is that the appellants should pay ad valorem court fee under S.51.

(3.) On the first question, there cannot be any doubt that Sabhapathi Pillai can also file an appeal, because he is one who is affected or bound by the award passed by the Subordinate Judge. We do not think that any authority is required for this; but, if any authority is necessary, there is the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Executive Officer, Sri. Padmanabhaswamy Temple v. Raghavan Pillai ( AIR 1961 Ker. 114 ), wherein it is laid down that a person, who was hot a party to a suit but is bound by the decree or whose interests are prejudicially affected by it, may file an appeal with the leave of the appellate court, though he cannot file an appeal as of right. The maximum that can be demanded is that Sabhapathi Tillai should file an application for leave, which he has done in this case. Therefore, there is no merit in the first object.