Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- I have read the weighty judgment proposed to be delivered by my brother Shah and I find myself so much in agreement with it that I consider it unnecessary for me to express myself. However, it is proper for me to say a few words in explanation since I was a party to P. Vajravelu Mudaliar s case.- (1965) 1 SCR 614 and the obiter pronouncement of some opinions there. That case was heard with N. B. Jeejeebhoy s case, (1965) 1 SCR . One was a post Constitution (Fourth Amendment) case and the other a pre Constitution case. The judgments in the two cases were delivered on the same day. It appears that the reasoning in the two cases was not kept separate and the whole of the matter was discussed in a case in which it was not necessary for the ultimate conclusion. Because of the close proximity of the decisions, it escaped me that the discussion was in the wrong case and the other merely followed it. My brother Shah has now made the two cases to fall in their proper places. It is certainly out of the question that the adequacy of compensation (apart from compensation which is illusory or proceeds upon principles irrelevant to its determination) should be que