Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit under the Land Acquisition Act. The property in respect of which the claim arises is situate in Allahabad, not far from the Muir Central College, for which institution it was acquired. The appellant has been awarded the sum of Rs. 7,900. In his appeal he claims a further sum of Rs. 32,000. There can be no doubt that if the appellant was the absolute owner of the property in dispute or even if he had a permanent interest therein subject only to the payment of Rs. 48-8-0 per annum to Government, he would be entitled to a considerably larger sum than has been awarded to him by the court below. We have considered the evidence, and we entirely agree with the court below that the appellant has not shown that he had any permanent interest in the plot. In our opinion his tenure amounted to no more than a tenancy from year to year.
2. We have been referred to Naba Kumari Debi v. Behari Lal Sen (1907) I.L.R., 34 Calc., 902, Nanda Lal Goswami v. Atarmani Dasee (1908) I.L.R., 36 Calc., 768, Upendra Krishna Mandal v. Ismail Khan Mahomed (1904) I.L.R., 82 Calc., 41 and Nilratan Mandal v. Ismail Khan Mahomed (1904) I.L.R., 82 Calc., 61. All these cases were decided upon their own facts and circumstances and are quite different from the present case.
3. In the view we take of the nature of the appellant's tenure, we cannot say that the compensation awarded him by the court below was erroneous. It has been contended that the judgment of the court below and the decree founded thereon are bad because the judgment was written by Mr. Tute after he had ceased to be the District Judge of Allahabad. The judgment, no doubt, was so written and it was delivered by his successor. We think the mere fact that Mr. Tute had ceased to be the District Judge, when he wrote the judgment, is not sufficient to vitiate the judgment. Order XX, Rule 2, provides that a Judge may pronounce a judgment written but not pronounced by his predecessor. In the Full Bench case of Satyendra Nath Ray Chaudhuri v. Kastura Kumari Ghatwalin (1908) I.L.R., 85 Calc., 756 the Calcutta High Court held that a judgment written ten months after the Judge had ceased to have jurisdiction in the particular division was good and fulfilled the conditions of the corresponding section of the Code of Civil Procedure then in force.
4. It has been further argued that the award is without jurisdiction because Government claimed an interest in the property as well as the appellant. We do not think that there is any force in this contention. It can hardly be said that if land was in the occupation of a lessee under a lease from Government for fifty years, ten years of which had expired when the property was wanted for some public purpose, the property could not be acquired upon payment of compensation to the lessee for his interest in the unexpired term If this be so, there is no difference in principle in the present case. If the appellant's interest is that of a tenant from year to year, he is entitled to compensation for the period that could elapse before he could be turned out and also for reasonable compensation for the buildings which are situate on the land.
5. In our opinion the appeal fails, and we accordingly dismiss it with costs.