JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:— These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and decrees of Kerala High Court in A.S. Nos. 603, 604 and 605 of 1969 dated June 29, 1973 confirming the award and decrees of the Civil Court in L. A. O. P. No. 413 etc. of 1964 and 370 and 405 of 1966 dated January 16, 1969. The notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short the Act) was published in the gazette on October 25, 1960 acquiring an ancient Chalai Anicut together with embankments, sluices, culverts etc. by six notifications. This ancient Chalai Anicut originally belonged to Arumughom Pillai. On his demise it devolved on his four sons Venkatachalam Pillai, Vishwanathan Pillai, Pasupathy Pillai and Subhapathy Pillai by intestate succession as coparceners. By partition deed Ex. E-23 dated December 22, 1954, the four brothers partitioned certain properties but kept in common acquired Chalai Anicut under the management of the eldest brother Venkatachalam Pillai. Pursuant to the notice issued under sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, Venkatachalam filed his objections making reference therein to the partition deed No. 2437 of 1954 in the Registrars office, Palghat and that each of the brothers had 1/4 share in the Anicut and irrigation system. After the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer compensation was made to all the brothers at 1/4th share each. Venkatachalam sought six references under section 18 as he was dissatisfied with the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Civil Court enhanced in all to a sum of Rs. 52,009.40 p. The State filed no appeal against the enhancement of the compensation. The Civil Court granted an award of 1/4 share thereof to Venkatachalam Pillai with solatium at 15 per cent and interest thereon at 4 per cent and did not award the balance amount to the appellants in their respective shares on the ground that they did not jointly ask for reference but only one alone asked for. The two brothers asked for reference for two awards only and the last one did not ask for reference of any award. On appeals, the High Court confirmed the award and decrees of the Civil Court. Thus these three appeals are at their behest. Common question of law arises in these appeals and hence they are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The sole question for decision is whether in a reference sought for by one of the co-owners whether the other co-owners who did not expressly seek reference are entitled to enhanced compensation pro-rata as per their shares. It, is not in dispute that under the partition deed, the four brothers as coparceners kept in common the acquired property and Venkatachalam was in management thereof and each is entitled to 1/4 share in the ancient Anicut and the irrigation system. It is also undisputed that total enhanced compensation is Rs. 52,009.40 p. Therein all the four brothers including the appellant are entitled to 1/4 share each. In the reference application made by Venkatachalam indisputably he mentioned that the acquired property belonged to him and his other brothers. and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and very low. It was also stated that they should get an enhanced amount at the figure specified in the reference application- Undoubtedly he stated therein that he is entitled to 1 / 4 share. What he stated thereby was that of his entitlement of 1/4 share of the total enhanced compensation and obviously, after the reference on par with his three brothers, he is entitled to receive compensation at 1/4 share. The Courts below disallowed the payment to the appellants on the ground that there is no mention in the claim petition of the partition deed; that they are the co-owners and that there is no averment that Venkatachalam was seeking reference under Section 18 on his behalf and on behalf of his other three brothers. As regards the first two grounds are concerned they are palpably incorrect. It is seen that an ex