Balakrishna Ayyar, J.- This is an appeal from the Order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for a share m the compensation amount deposited by the Government of Madras in respect of the undertenure estate of Neduvayal. On 7th September, 1949, the State of Madras took over this estate under Madras. Act XXVI of 1948. In accordance with the requirements of the Act, the State of Madras deposited a sum of Rs. 43,887 as advance compensation. On 12th July, 1952, the Government deposited an additional sum of Rs. 13,068 as further compensation. It appears that there are in all 16 irrigation tanks in this village. The petitioners claimed that they were the owners of 14 of these tanks, and that the compensation amount attributable to these tanks should be paid over to them. The Tribunal found that the petitioners had title to tanks Nos. 1, 2 and 5. By a majority of two to one, however, the Tribunal held that though the title to these tanks vested in the petitioners, they were not entitled to any share in the compensation. Hence this appeal. The compensation which Madras Act XXVI of 1948 requires Government to deposit with the Estates Abolition Tribunal represents the value of the interests of the landholder or zamindar in the estate, such value being computed in accordance with the principles laid down in the Act. If, therefore, the landholder was the owner of these tanks, and his rights in respect of these tanks came to be lawfully vested in the petitioners, they would be entitled to the compensation attributable to the rights of the landholders in these tanks. It, therefore, becomes necessary to examine what the title is of the petitioners in respect of each one of these tanks. [After discussing the evidence their Lordships conclude:] The appellants have produced satisfactory evidence of title relating to tanks 1 to 3, 5, 6 and 11 to 14; and also shown that they are in possession and enjoyment of the miscellaneous revenue from these tanks. We shall, therefore, be justified in concluding that they had title to these tanks. O.P. No. 83 of 1951 was a petition filed by the present appellants before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, wherein they applied for payment out to them of a portion of the ‘interim payments’ which the State of Madras had deposited. We shall, therefore, be justified in concluding that they had title to these tanks. O.P. No. 83 of 1951 was a petition filed by the present appellants before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, wherein they applied for payment out to them of a portion of the ‘interim payments’ which the State of Madras had deposited. The prayer column in the petition ran as follows:- “It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct an apportionment of the two. amounts of interim payments, Rs. 251 plus Rs. 1,944 in all Rs. 2,195 between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 5 on the one part in respect of the two villages Mela Vennar Irruppu and Pannai Kila Vannar Irruppu and the first respondent in respect of the other villages of the said Pakyapattu of Zamin.” Mr. Desikan, the learned advocate for the respondents, pointed out that in this petition the appellants made no claim in respect of any of these tanks. O.P. No. 103 of 1951 was another petition filed by one of the present appellants under section 42 of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. That also relates to the advance compensation deposited by the Government in respect of the two villages of Mela Vennar Irruppu and Kila Vannar Irruppu, which we have already mentioned. In this too they did not claim any compensation in respect of the tanks. The present appellants filed O.P. No. 936 of 1952, before the Estates Abolition Tribunal. In this too they did not claim that they were entitled to compensation in respect of these tanks. Therefore, argued Mr. Desikan, they are not entitled to make the present claim. We are unable to see why. Their omission to make a claim in respect of these tanks certainly does not operate as an estoppel. It is impossible to say that the documents produced by the appellants in support of their present claim were brought into existence subsequent to the three O.Ps. which Mr. Desikan referred to. The most that we can say is that at the time they presented these petitions they were not themselves fully aware of the full extent of their rights. A perusal of the petition which they filed before the Estates Abolition Tribunal and out of which this appealarose shows that the petitioners and their legal advisers had some difficulty in defining their legal rights. A perusal of the petition which they filed before the Estates Abolition Tribunal and out of which this appealarose shows that the petitioners and their legal advisers had some difficulty in defining their legal rights. But the difficulty a person or his legal adviser feels in defining what rights he has under certain documents the genuineness of which is not disputed cannot deprive him of any rights he had. As we have said before the compensation deposited by Government represents the value of the interest of the zamindar that vested in the Government under Act XXVI of 1948. That compensation is determined at so many times “the basic annual sum” . Clause (4) of section 31 of Act XXVI of 1948 makes it clear that this basic annual sum includes “the whole of the average net annual miscellaneous revenue derived from all other sources in the estate specified in section 3, clause (b) but not including lands in respect of which the landholder is entitled to ryotwari patta as ascertained under section 34” . Under section 34 the average net annual miscellaneous revenue referred to in section 31 (4) shall be the average of the net annual income derived by the Government from such sources during the three years specified in that section. In view of our finding that the right to the tanks Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14 vests in the petitioners, the compensation attributable in respect of the net miscellaneous income derived from those tanks must be paid to them. This means that the petitioners will be entitled to the amount to be ascertained by the application of the following formula A/BXC where A represents the net annual miscellaneous revenue derived rom the tanks mentioned above by the Government under section 34 of the Act, and B. represents the basic annual sum in respect of the under-tenure estate of Neduvayal and C represents the compensation amount deposited by Government. The appeal is allowed to this extent: the Tribunal will compute and ascertain the amount payable to the appellants under this formula. There will be no order as to costs. V.S. ----- Appeal allowed partly.