The correct method of valuation in cases of tenancy is to evaluate all interests in the land as a whole and then apportion the amount among the parties according to their respective interests. Additionally, relevant enactments may entitle parties to claim enhancement in compensation for land acquisition.

1. This is an appeal by the two plaintiffs in L. A. R. No. 34 of 1959 of the Court of the first additional Subordinate Judge of Alleppey. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the land inclusive of the improvements thereon at Rs. 34,557. That valuation has been confirmed in the judgment under appeal.

2. The tenure of the land is Pandaravaka Pattom. The Pattadar is the Cochin Thirumala Devaswom. The plaintiffs are tenants under that Devaswom.

3. The appellants claimed an enhancement of the total compensation awarded by Rs. 76,138 and sought an apportionment of their share therein. The Land Acquisition Officer had apportioned the value of the improvement in the composite amount awarded by him between the appellants and the Devaswom. The appellants accept that mode of apportionment and their only claim as far as their improvements are concerned is that the enhanced compensation, if any, awarded as a result of this appeal should also be apportioned on that basis.

4. There is no doubt that the correct method of valuation in cases like this where there is a tenancy is to evaluate all the interests in the land as a whole and then apportion the amount so ascertained among the parties according to their respective interests in the land acquired. According to the lower court the appellants have not claimed any increase in the value awarded for the improvements on the land. This does not appear to be correct. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a composite figure of Rs. 34,557, and what the appellants have done is to claim an enhancement thereof by Rs. 76,138.

5. The main question for determination is whether the appellants have any interest in the land acquired apart from their interest in the improvements thereon. The judgment under appeal takes the view that they have none and has decided the reference on that basis.

6. The lease deed in favour of the appellants is Ext. P-7 dated 4 21929. It was for a term of 15 years. That term expired on 3 21944. The declaration under S.6 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089, was subsequent thereto. It was on 17101958.

7. The appellants, it is agreed, were still in possession of the land on the date of the declaration. The question for determination, however is not merely whether the appellants because they were holding over after the expiry of the term of years granted by Ext. P-7 are entitled to make a claim for enhancement of the land value awarded in the land acquisition proceedings. The more difficult question is whether, quite apart from the right, if any, that would stem from such holding over, the appellants are entitled to agitate the matter because of Act 1 of 1957 which as amended by Act 7 of 1957, Act 1 of 1958 and Act 30 of 1958 was in force on the relevant date.

8. We are inclined to hold that the provisions of the enactments mentioned above, quite apart from the other contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, entitle the appellants to agitate the claim for enhancement made by them. It follows that the judgment under appeal has to be set aside and the case remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal according to law. We express no opinion as to what exactly is the value of the interests that the appellants possess. That will be a matter for determination by the court below and in order that the said question may be effectively determined the parties will be at liberty to adduce such evidence as they deem fit in the matter.

9. The appeal is disposed of as above. The point raised before us has not been specifically urged in the court below. The appellants will, therefore, pay the costs of the respondents in this appeal irrespective of the result of the remand.

Advocate's fee, one set.

10. The court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal will be refunded to counsel for the appellants. Remanded.