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 Cochin and that this High Court is the High Court for the new State, it has become necessary to review the conflicting decisions in Mathunni v. Kocheeppan & Kunhan Nair v. Raman referred to above, and to give an authoritative ruling on the question as to the date on which paddy has to be valued in suits arising out of paddy transactions and also in the case of decrees directing payment of paddy, so that one and the same rule regarding that matter may be followed by all the Courts in the State irrespective of any consideration as to whether the transaction in question arose within the territory covered by the former State of Travancore or the former State of Cochin. It was for an authoritative pronouncement on that question that A.S. No. 125 of 1124 was referred to the Full Bench. The order of reference in that case is in the following terms:-

“The question raised in this appeal is as to the date at which the paddy claimed in the suit has to be commuted into money. So far as the former State of Travancore was concerned, the prevailing view is that laid down in the latest Full Bench decision of the erstwhile Travancore High Court, reported in Mathunni v. Kocheeppan (1948 TLR 110). There it has been laid down that in the case of a suit, paddy will have to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of the suit, and in the case of execution of decrees, paddy will have to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of the first execution petition. It appears that these rules are being applied to cases coming from the Travancore area, even after the new State of Travancore-Cochin has come into existence. The prevailing view in Cochin, on the same question, is entirely different from the view taken in Mathunni v. Kocheeppan (1948 TLR 110). The latest decision of the erstwhile Cochin High Court governing this matter is the one reported in Kunhan Nair v. Raman (1121 (37) Cochin 60). It is also a Full Bench decision and it is to the effect that paddy has to be commuted into money at the nirak rate prevailing on the date when such paddy became payable. This rule is being applied to cases coming from the Cochin area. We think that there is no justification for applying two rules to two sets of cases after the two States have been integrated. This Court is the High Court for the integrated State of Travancore-Cochin and there should only be one rule regarding the valuation of paddy in all cases arising within the State. The question is, which of the two conflicting Full Bench decisions has to prevail. This question has to be authoritatively decided by a Full Bench of three or more Judges of this Court. Accordingly, this case is referred to a Full Bench for decision after finally pronouncing as to which of the two conflicting views has to prevail so far as this Court