G. Kumara Pillai, J.

1. This appeal relates to apportionment between the landlord and tenant, of the compensation amount awarded in a Land Acquisition Case. The properties acquired, namely, 84 cents of paddy land, 23 cents of garden land, and a tank measuring 1 acre 15 cents, belonged in jenmam to the Kakkayur Devaswom of Kuthiravattathu Nayar and formed part of the kanom holding comprised in Ext. B4. The original kanom grant was Ext. B1 dated 15-11-1894. It was renewed by Ext. B2 in 1913, by Ext. B3 in 1925, and by Ext. B4 in 1940. The notification for the acquisition was published on 28th May 1952.

2. Details of the compensation awarded are as follows:

I	Paddy land:-		Rs.	A.	P.
	Land value at Rs. 2250/- per acre for 84 cents
	1,890	0	0
	Value of 6 palmyra trees standing on the spot
	36	0	0
		Total	1,926	0	0
	15 per cent solaium		288	14	5
		Total	2, 214	14	5
II	(a)Garden land measuring 10 cents:
	Rs.	A.	P.
	Value of annual yield of trees
	21	0	0
	Capitalised value of same for 20 years		420	0	0
	Value of house		77	5	7
		Total	497	5	7
	15 per cent solarium		74	9	8
		Total	571	15	3
	(b) Garden land measuring 13 cents: Value of annual yield of trees		7	8	0
	Capotalised value of same for 20 years
	15 per cent solaium	150	0	0
		Total	172	8	0
		Total of (a) &(b)	744	7	3
III	Tank of 1 acre 15 cents:
	Value of land		345	0	0
	Cost of excavation		5,080	5	1
	Cost of construction of retaining walls		1,024	12	10
	Less depreciation 15 per cent		153	11	6
	Value of trees on bank of tank		78	0	0
		Total	6,374	6	5
	Solatium		956	2	7
		Total	7,330	9	0
	Total compensation awarded including 15% solatium		1,02,89	14	8

3. As there were disputes between the jenmi and the kanomdar regarding apportionment of this compensation amount, the land acquisition officer referred the case to the court of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat, and the learned Subordinate Judge has passed a decree awarding to the jenmi (landlord), who was respondent 1 in the proceedings before him, Rs. 6,539-3-9 being one-third of land value, half solatium, three-fourth of excavation charge of tank with solatium thereon, and one-fourth value of the palmyra trees with proportionate solatium; and to the kanomdar (tenant), who was respondent 2 before him, Rs. 3,750-10-11 being two-third land value with half solatium one-fourth excavation charge with solatium and three-fourth value of the palmyra trees. The appeal is filed by the kanomdar, i. e., respondent 2 before the lower court, against the above decree.

4. The acquisition in this case was made for the purpose of the Malampuzha Scheme, and there were many references in the court below in connection with the acquisitions made for that project. Some of those references were decided before this case, some along with this case, and some after it. Professing to follow the decision of the Madras High Court in Natesa Aiyer v. Khaja Maruf Sahib (AIR 1927 Mad. 489), the lower court awarded in these cases one-third of the value of land and half the solatium to the jenmi; and it was following that practice that the lower court awarded in this case also one-third land value and half the solatium to the jenmi and two-third land value and half the solatium to the kanomdar. So far as the tank is concerned the kanomdar's case was that it was he who dug