K. Sankaran, J.

All these six appeals are independent of one another. But there is one feature common to all of them in that the claim in all the cases involves a claim arising out of a transaction in paddy. In some of the suits the claim is for the paddy due under such transactions or the value of such paddy, while in the other cases decrees have been passed directing payment of paddy. There is dispute between the parties as to the date on which the paddy claimed under these different categories has to be commuted into money. The question of such commutation is covered by a series of decisions of the respective High Courts of the former States of Travancore and Cochin. The latest pronouncement on this question by the Travancore High Court is contained in the Full Bench decision in Mathunni v. Kocheeppan (1948 TLR 110) and the latest pronouncement of the Cochin High Court is contained in Kunhan Nair v. Raman (1121 (37) Cochin 60 FB). There is considerable divergence in the views taken by these High Courts on the identical question. Now that the new State of Travancore-Cochin has come into existence as a result of the integration of the former States of Travancore and Cochi