Holding

A reference under Section 18 filed by one co‑owner is deemed to be on behalf of all co‑owners, who are therefore entitled to the enhanced compensation pro‑rata as per their shares.

Summary

Four brothers, who had partitioned their ancestral property in 1954 but kept the acquired Chalai Anicut in common, were compensated 1/4 each after a land acquisition. The eldest brother, Venkatachalam Pillai, filed six references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhanced compensation for all brothers. The Civil Court enhanced the total award but granted the enhanced amount only to Venkatachalam, holding that the other three brothers were not entitled because they had not jointly applied for reference. The High Court affirmed this view. The Supreme Court held that a reference made by one co‑owner on behalf of the coparceners is sufficient, and all co‑owners are entitled to a pro‑rata share of the enhanced compensation, awarding each brother his 1/4 share with solatium and interest. The appeals were allowed, directing payment of the enhanced award to the appellants.

Issues considered

Whether co‑owners who did not expressly seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are entitled to the enhanced compensation on a pro‑rata basis.
Whether a reference filed by one co‑owner can be deemed to be made on behalf of all co‑owners.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 10, s. 18, s. 4, s. 9

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 18 referenceCoparcenaryHindu lawJoint propertyCompensation enhancementCo‑owner rightsPartition deedSolatiumInterest

Judgment

A. VISWANATHA PILLAI AND ORS. A
v.
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR E_QR LAND ACQUISITION
NO. IV AND ORS.

AUGUST 9, 1991
8
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Ss. 4, 9, 18-Land acquisition-
Hindu coparcenery property-Acquisition of-Compensation-Refe-
rence under s. 18 by one coparcener-Other coparceners not parties to
reference-Whether a reference on behalf of all co-parceners-Entitle-
ment of enhanced compensation-Whether all coparceners entitled to
c
compensation pro-rata as per their shares-Whether State should take
technical objections to entitlement of claim.

The three appellants and their eldest brother, under a family
partition, which took place in 1954, kept in common certain ancestral D
properties under the management of the latter. These properties were
acquired in pnrsuance of a notification dated 15.1.1967 under s. 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The eldest brother filed objections
referring to the partition deed of 1954 and stated that each of the four
brothers had 1/4 share in the properties in question. Ultimately the
compensation was made to all the brothers at I/4th share tach. E

The eldest brother sought six references under s. 18 being dis-
satisfied with the awards. The Civil Court enhanced the compensation
and granted an award of l/4th share thereof to the eldest brother with
• solatium and interest, but did not award the balance amount to the
1 appellants in their respective shares on the ground that they did not F
jointly ask for the reference. Out of the remaining three brothers two
asked for reference for two awards only and the last one did not ask for
reference of any award. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the
award and decrees of the civil court. Aggrieved, the appellants prefer-
red appeals by special leave to this Court.
G
On the question: whether in a reference under s. 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act sought for by one of the co-owners, the other co-
owners, who did not expressly seek reference are entitled to enhanced
compensation pro-rata as per their shares?

Allowing the appeals, this Court, H

465
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

A
HELD: l. I The Courts below committed a manifest error in
refusing to pass an award and payment thereof to the appellants. The
coparceners claimants-appellants in the instant case were entitled to
payment of the enhanced award by the Civil Court pro-rate of their
I/4th share each with 15 per cenl solatium and 4 per cent interest as
awarded by the Civil Court. [471C-D I
B
l.2 It was not in dispute that under the partition deed, the four
brothers as coparceners kept in rommon the acquired property under
the management of th"e eldest brother. The income derived therein was
being shared in proportion to their shares by all the brothers. There-
fore, it remained as joint property. As co-owners everyone was entitled
C to I/4th share therein. [468E; 470F]

1.3 When one of the co-owners or coparceners made a statement
in the reference application that the acquired property belonged to him
und bis brothers, that he himself and his brothers were dissatisfied with
the award made by the Collector and that they were entitled to higher
D compensation, it would be clear that he was making a request, though
not expressly stated so but by necessary implication that he was acting
on his behalf and on behalf of his other co-owners or coparceners and
was seeking a reference on their behalf as well. What was acquired was their
totality of right, title and interest in the acquired property and when the
reference was made in respect thereof under s. 18, they were equally
E entitled to receive compensation pro-rata as per their shares. [468F; 471A-B I

2.1 One of the co-owners can file a suit and recover the property
against strangers and the decree would ensure to all the co-owners. A ..
co-owner is an OW!ler of the property acquired but entitled to receive
compensation pro-rata. [470A & El
F
2.2 A co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a
so_le owner. It is not correct to say that a co-owner's property was not
his own. He owns several parts of the composite property along with
others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional
owner in the property. [470C-D I
G y •
2.3 No co-owner has a definite right, title and interest in any
particular item or a portion thereof. On the other hand he has right,
title and interest in every part and parcel of the joint property or
coparcenary under Hindu Law by all the coparceners. [470A-B]

H Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak & Ors., [1977] 3 S.C.R. 412; Sri Ram
A.V. PILLAI v. TAHSILDAR !RAMASWAMY, J.J 467

Pasricha v. Jagannath & Ors., ll9'i7] l S.C.R. 295 and Pal Singh v.
A
Sunder Singh (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., 11989] l S.C.R. 67, relied on.

3. It is. surprising that the State having acquired the property of a
citizen would take technical objections regarding the entitlement of the
claim. The State certainly is right and .is entitled to resist claim for
enhancement and lead evidence in rebuttal to prove the prevailing price B
as on the date of notification and ask the court to determine the correct
market value of the lands acquired compulsorily under the Act. But so
far as the persons entitled to receive compensation are concerned, it has
no role to play. It is for the claimants inter se to lay the claim for
compensation and the Court would examine and award the compensa-
tion .to the rightful person. l469E-F]
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 54
to 56 of 1975.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.1973 of the Kerala
High Court in A.S. Nos. 603, 604 and 605 of 1969. D

N. Sudhakaran for the Appellants.

K.V. Viswanathan, K.R. Nambiar and T.T. Kunhikannan for
the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

_;, K. RAMASWAMY, J. These appeals by ~peciRl leave are
-< directed against the judgment and decrees of Kerala High Court in
A.S. Nos. 603, 604 and 605 of 1969 dated June 29, 1973 confirming the
award and decrees of the Civil Court in L.A.0.P. No. 413 etc. of 1964 F
and 370 and 405 of 1966 dated January 16, 1969. The notification
under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short 'the
.Act') was published in the gazette on October 25, 1960 ecquiring an
ancient Chalai Anicut together with embarkments,-·sluices, culverts
etc. by six notifications. This ancient Chalai Anicut originally belon-
ged to Arumughom Pillai. On bis demise it devolved on his four sons G
. '°I Venkatachalam Pillai, Vishwanathan Pillai, Pasupathy Pillai and Sub-
hapathy Pillai by intestate succession as coparceners. By partition
deed Ex. B-23 dated December 22, 1954, the four brothers partitioned
certai'l properties but kept in common acquired Chalai Anicut under
the management of the eldest brother Venkat:lchalam Pillai. Pursuant
to the notice issued under section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, Venkatacha- H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19911 3 S.C.R.

Jam filed his objections making reference therein to the partition deed
A
No. 2437 of 1954 in the Registrar's office, Palghat and that each of the
brothers had 1/4 share in the Anicut and irrigation system. After the
award made by the Land Acquisition Officer compensation was made
to all the brothers at 1/4th share each. Venkatachalam sought six
references under section 18 as he was dissatisfied with the awards
B made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Civil Court enhanced in all
to a sum of Rs.52,009.40 p. The State filed no appeal against the
enhancement of the compensation. The Civil Court granted an award
of 1/4 share thereof to Venkatachalam Pillai with solatium at 15 per
cent and interest thereon at 4 per cent and did not award the balance
amount to the appellants in their respective shares on the ground that
they did not jointly ask for reference but only one alone asked for. The
c two borthers asked for reference for two awards only and the last one
did not ask for reference of any award. On appeals, the High Court
confirmed the award and decrees of the Civil Court. Thus these three
appeals at their behest. Common question of law arises in these ap-
peals and hence they are disposed of by a common judgment.
D
The sole question for decision is whether in a reference
sought for by one of the co-owners whether the other co-owners
who did not expressly seek reference, are entitled to enhanced
compensation pro-rata as per their shares. It is not in dispute
E
that under the partition deed, the four brothers as coparceners
kept in common the acquired property and Venkatachalam was
in management thereof and each are entitled to 1/4 share in the
ancient Anicut and the irrigation system. It is also undisputed
that total enhanced compensation is Rs.52,009.40 p. Therein all
the four brothers including the appellant are entitled to 1/4 share
F each. In the reference application made by the Venkatachalam
indisputably he mentioned that the acquired property belonged
to him and his other brothers and the compensation awarded by
the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and very low. It
was also stated that they should get an enhanced amount at the
figure specified in the reference application. Undoubted he
G
stated therein that he is entitled to 1/4 share. What he stated
thereby was that of his entitlement of 1/4 share of the total
enhanced compensation and obviously, after the reference on
par with his three brothers, he is entitled to receive compensa-
tion at 1/4 share. The c;ourts below disallowed the payment to
H the appellants on the ground that there is no mention in the
A.V. PILLAI v. TAHSILDAR [RAMASWAMY. J.[ 469

claim petition of the partition deed; that they are the co-owners
and that there is no averment that the Venkatachalam·was seek-
ing reference under section 18 on his behalf and on behalf of his
other three brothers. As regards the first two grounds are con-
cerned they are palpably incorrect. It is seen that an express
averment was made in the objections filed pursuant to notice B
under section 9(3) and 10 and also in his reference application
under section 18 of the Act, that there was prior partition and
each of the brothers are entitled to 1/4th share and that they are
dissatisfied with the award of the Collector. Undoubtedly there
is no express averment in the reference application under section
18 that he is seeking a reference on his behalf and on behalf of c
his three brothers. It is contended by the counsel for the State
that the pleadings are to be strictly construed and that as the
reference was sought for only by Venkatachalam of all the six
awards the other three brothers are not entitled to any share in
the enhanced compensation. In support thereof it is also further 0
contended that Viswanathan and Pasupathy had only asked for
reference in respect of two awards and Sabhapathy Pillai made
no request for reference against any of the six awards made by
the Collector. It is true that Viswanathan and Pasupathy made
such request in respect of two awards and Sabhapathy did not
make any request for reference against any of the awards. But · E
what would be the consequence in law is the question. It is
surprising that the State having acquired the property of a citizen
would take technical objections regarding the entitlement of the
claim. The State certainly is right and entitled to resist claim for
enhancement and lead evidence in rebuttal to prove the prevail- F
ing price as on the date of notification and ask the court to
determine the correct market value of the lands acquired com-
pulsorily under the Act. But as regards the persons entitled to
receive compensation are concerned it has no role to play. It is
for the claimants inter se to lay the claim for compensation and
the court would examine and award the compensation to the · G
"i rightfui person. As seen in the objections pursuant to the notice
under section 9(3) and 10, Venkatchalam made necessary aver-
ments that himself and his brothers had 1/4 share in the Anicut
and irrigation system pursuant to the partition deed referred to
therein~ In his reference application under section 18 also he
H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) 3 S.C.R.

A reiterated the same and stated that the amount awarded by the
Collector was in adequate and that they were dissatisfied with it
and that they are entitled to more. It is settled law that one of the
co-owners can file a suit and rewver the property against stran-
).. .
gers and the decree would enure to all the co-owners. It is
B equally settled law that no co-owner has a definite right, title and
interest in any particular item or a portion thereof. On the other
hand he has right, title and interest in every part and parcel of
the joint property or coparcenery under Hindu Law by all the
coparceners. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak & Ors,. [1977] 3
S.C.R. 412, this Court upheld an application by one of the co-
c owners for eviction o( a tenant for personal occupation of the +•
co-owners as being maintainable. The same view was. reiterated
in Sri Ram l'asricha v. Jagannath & Ors., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 395
and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (dead) by Lrs. & Ora.., 11989] 1
S.C.R. 67. A co-owner is as much an owner of the entire pro-
D perty as a sole owner of the property. It is not correct to say that
a co-owner's property was not its own. He owns several parts of
the composite property alongwith others and it cannot be said
that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner in the property.
~ .
That position will undergo a change only when partition takes
place and division was effected by metes and bounds. Therefore,
E
a co-owner of the property is an owner of the property acquired
but ·entitled to receive comptmsation pro-rata. The State would
plead no waiver nor omission by other co-owners to seek refe-
rence nor disentitle them to an award to the extent of their legal ~

entitlement when in law they are entitled to. Since the acquired >
F property being the ancestral coparcenary and continued to be
kept in common among the brothers and the income derived
therein was being shared in proportion of their shares by all the
brothers it remained as joint property. As co-owners everyone is
entitled to 1/4 share therein. It was also laid by this Court in a
recent judgment in Ram Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India &
G Ors., [1991] 1SCR64~that it is the duty of the Collector to send
full information of the survey numbers under acquisition to the ... •
court and make reference under section 18 and failure thereof is
illegal. The same ratio would apply to the facts in this case as
well. When one of the co-owner or coparceners made a state-
H ment in his reference application that himself and his brothers
A.V. PILLAI v. TAHSILDAR [RAMASWAMY. J.\ 471

are dissatisfied with the award made by the Collector and that A
they are entitled to higher compensation, it would be clear that
he was making a request, though not expressly stated so but by
necessary implication that he was acting on his behalf and on
behalf of his other co-owners or coparceners and was seeking a
reference on behalf of other co-owners as well. What was B
acquired was their totality of right, title and interest in the
acquired property and when the reference was made in respect
thereof under secti~n 18 they are equally entitled to receive
compensation pro-rata as per their shares. The courts below
committed manifest error in refusing to pass an award and pay-
ment thereof to the appellants merely on the ground that there c
was no mention in this regard in the reference app1i ation or two
0

of them sought reference in respect of two awards and the last
one made no attempt in their behalf. The claimants are entitled
to payment of the enhanced award by the Civil Court pro-rata of
their 1/4 share each with 15 per cent solatium and 4 per cent D
interest as awarded by the Civil Court. The appeals are accord-
ingly allowed with costs of this Court.

R.P. Appeals allowed.

"i