Ravindran, J.

This appeal arises from the decree and judgment passed by the Court of the Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur in L.A.R. No.62 of 1999. The appellant was claimant No.B therein. By the impugned judgment, the court below held that the appellant is not entitled to claim apportionment of the compensation.

2. A parcel of land (0.2455 hectares) situated in Survey No.170/1, Aluva West Village belonging to Sri. Vareed, S/o. Raphel was acquired for the purpose of Cochin Refineries Ltd. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, Sri. Vareed, the land owner appeared and filed a claim statement claiming that he is the absolute owner of the property and that his daughters have no right over the acquired land. His daughters Smt. Lilly George, Smt. Francina James, Smt. Jasseentha James and Smt. Elcy Xavier and his son-in-law Sri. Stephan John, also filed a claim statement before the Land Acquisition Officer Standing that Sri. Vareed is old, infirm and is not in a position to look after, that he is under the influence of his sons and that, as the legal heirs of Sri. Vareed, they are entitled to an equal share in the land value. In view of the dispute between the parties, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the amount awarded as land value in court as required under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference was taken on file and numbered as L.A.R. No.62 of 1999. While L.A.R. No.62 of 1999 was pending, Sri. Vareed passed away on 30.8.2000 and thereupon by order passed on 7.2002 in I.A. No.621/2001 additional claimants G to K, who are his sons, were impleaded. Later, Sri. Raphel, additional Claimant G passed away thereupon his legal heirs additional claimants L to O were impleaded as per order dated 111.2002 passed on I.A. No.2139 of 2002.

3. In the reference court, additional Claimants G to K, who are the sons of Sri. Vareed, filed a claim statement to the effect that their father had executed Ext.A1 Will on 28.2.1985 bequeathing the acquired property to them, that on the death of the testator on 30.8.2000 the property devolved on them and that by virtue of the Will, they are the persons entitled to receive the amount lying in deposit in the court. Claimants-G to K also claimed enhancement of the land value. Additional claimants L to O who are the legal heirs of Claimant-G filed a statement admitting the Will and supporting the stand taken by Claimants G to K. In the reference court, Claimant-H was examined as AW1. The second attesting witnesses to Ext.A1 Will was examined as PW2, the wife of the first attesting witness to Ext.A1 Will was examined as AW3 and the document writer was examined as AW4. No evidence was adduced on the side of Claimants B to F who contested the validity of the Will. The reference court on an analysis of the evidence in the case held that Ext.A1 Will was validly executed and has been properly proved. In that view of the matter, the reference court held that Claimants G to K alone are entitled to get the land value deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer. Additional Claimants L to O were held entitled to get the share of Additional Claimants-G. The appellant has in this appeal questioned the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the reference court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel on either side. Sri. T.I. Abdul Salam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Ext.A1 Will has not been validly executed and that as the testator passed away on 30.8.2000 after the land was acquired, the subject matter of the bequest ceased to exist and therefore the Will cannot operate to exclude the daughters, from claiming an equal share in the compensation. The learned counsel further contended that as the Will has not been probated or letters of administration obtained, the claim put forwarded by Claimants G to K based on Ext.A1 Will is liable to be rejected.

5. Wehave considered the submissions made at the bar. As regards challenge to Ext.A1 Will, the on