The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the claim of the second respondent to the compensation amount under S.33(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act and that there was sufficient evidence to prove his exclusive right to the acquired property.

1. This appeal arises out of a reference under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act for apportionment of compensation.

2. The appellant is the first respondent in the lower court. The second respondent in the lower court was impleaded in the appeal as the first respondent. It was represented before me by counsel for the appellant that the first respondent in the appeal died even during the pendency of the proceedings in the lower court and since his legal representatives were not brought on record his name has been struck off from the appeal. The second respondent in the appeal was impleaded as the third respondent in the lower court on the basis of I. A. 1414 of 1967 filed by him.

3. The lower court by the decision under appeal directed the payment of the entire compensation to the second respondent in the appeal. It is that decision of the lower court that is challenged in the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions. The first is that since the second respondent in the appeal was not a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer and since there was no claim made by him before the Land Acquisition Officer, the learned Subordinate Judge acted without jurisdiction when he impleaded him as a party and considered his claim to the compensation. The second ground is that the evidence is insufficient to prove the exclusive right of the second respondent to the acquired property. Point No. 1. The reference to the lower court was under S.33 (2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act on the ground that there is a dispute in regard to the title to the land acquired. In I. A, 1414 of 1967 filed in the lower court by the second respondent in the appeal for getting himself impleaded, he had stated that he did not receive notice from the Land Acquisition Officer as required by the Statute and that he was not impleaded as a party to those proceedings. It was further alleged by him that on 26 21967 he had applied before the Land Acquisition Officer that the land acquired belonged to him and the compensation money should be paid to him and that on 3131967 he got a reply that be should make an application in the Land Acquisition Court where a petition is pending regarding apportionment of compensation. I. A. 1414 of 1967 was filed on 6 71967 under S.151 and 0.1, R.10, CPC. No objection was raised by the appellant in the Court below to I. A. 1414 of 1967. The lower court, therefore, passed an order on 18 81967 impleading him as the third respondent in the trial proceedings. The rival claims of the appellant, first respondent and the second respondent to the acquired property, were therefore, examined by the court below. The first respondent in the appeal was claiming title to the acquired property on the basis of a partition karar of 1052 in his family. He was declared ex parte in the court below and his claim was, therefore, not accepted. This part of the decision of the lower court has become final.

5. Before I consider the question whether the lower court was competent to have enquired into the claim of the second respondent, it is necessary to dispose of a contention raised by the appellant's counsel. He pointed out that the second respondent had filed a statement before the Land Acquisition Officer saying that he had no title to the acquired property and a petition has been filed by the appellant in this court for calling for the file of the Land Acquisition Officer produced in the court below, which contains the said statement. In that petition, this court passed an order calling for the file from the lower court. A reply has been received from the lower court to the effect that the said file has been taken back by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant did not pursue the matter to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to produce the file in this Court.

6. Even if the file had been made available, it is not open to this court to look into the alleged statement without proof, as the filing of an