The main legal point established in the judgment is that all appeals from decisions of Subordinate Judges in land acquisition proceedings, regardless of the value of the subject-matter, lie to the High Court under the provisions of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957.

1. These are appeals brought against decisions of "the Court" (in each case, a Subordinate Judge) in land acquisition proceedings, five of them under the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 which we shall hereafter call the Kerala Act, and the remaining five under the provisions of the (Travancore) Land Acquisition Act, 1089 which we shall hereafter call the Travancore Act. (With the exception of one provision, namely, S.60 of the Kerala Act, the provisions of these two statutes are, so far as we are here concerned, the same as the provisions of the Central Act, namely, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, in discussing matters covered by identical provisions of the three statutes, we shall refer to the older, better known, and more widely and more authoritatively construed provisions of the Central Act). In all the ten cases the value of the subject-matter of the proceeding is (or is assumed to be) not over Rs. 10,000/-. The appeals have not been registered pending decision of the question whether, in the light of the division bench ruling in Thomas v. Viswanathan Pillai,1965 KLT 616 they lie to this court and ought not to have been instituted in the concerned District Court. This question, referred by a single judge to a division bench, and, in turn, by the division bench to a full bench, in the view that the decision just referred to might require reconsideration, is the question before us.

2. We have come to the conclusion that, having regard to the provisions of S.12 and 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 (which were not considered in Thomas v. Viswanathan Pillai 1965 KLT/616), irrespective of the value, irrespective of whether the decision is on a reference under S.18 or one under S.30 of the Central Act (S.18 and 27 respectively of the Travancore Act, and S.20 and 32 of the Kerala Act) and irrespective of whether the dispute relates to the amount of the compensation, or to the title to receive it (in other words, the title to the land acquired apportionment when there is more than one person entitled is also a question of title, the question being the extent of the title or interest of each of the persons entitled), or to both, all appeals from decisions of Subordinate Judges we express no opinion as to appeals from decisions of a Land Acquisition Court established under S.58 of the Kerala Act; none has yet been established lie to the High Court. And this we think is as it should be. For, apart from that disputes

regarding the amount of the compensation generally involve much larger stakes than the subject-matter of the particular proceeding, any attempt to divide the work between the High Court and the District Courts on the basis of the value of the subject-matter is fraught with difficulties of valuation, and, therefore, with uncertainty. And, so far as disputes as to title are concerned, there is no difference whatsoever between a dispute referred under S.18 and a dispute referred under S.30 of the Central Act. Yet, if the value of the subject-matter be the basis, it might well happen that, although the value be the same, an appeal from a decision regarding title on a reference under S.30 lies to the District Court while one on a reference under S.18 lies to the High Court if the latter be regarded as an award. Or, if it be not so regarded, that, in the case of a composite reference under S.18, the appeal from the decision on the question of title lies to the District Court, while the appeal from the decision on the question of the amount of the compensation lies to the High Court. We have had the assistance of the learned Advocate General, and, of course, of counsel for the appellants notice has not gone to the respondents and gain assurance for our conclusion from the circumstance that they have all argued for the position that all appeals lie to the High Court, and are all agreed that that is as it ought to be.

3. S.11 of the Central Act requires the Collector to "make an award

under