Judgment :- 1. Appeal by plaintiff. The only question here is of the manner in which cocoanuts are to be valued for purposes of determining compensation for improvements. The commissioner deputed by the Munsiff to report on the value of improvements on the suit property fixed the value at the average price in the 12 years preceding his inspection of the property, which was in 1958; and that was accepted by the Munsiff. Before the lower appellate Court the appellant produced attested copies of certain records in the Taluk Office, Thiruvalla, showing the price of cocoanuts in the 10 years that preceded the date of the suit, and contended that the price fixed by the commissioner was excessive. The Court rejected the plea on the ground that the cocoanut palms concerned "came into existence only after the institution of the suit". Hence this Second Appeal. 2. The Commissioner filed his report fixing compensation a month after the commencement of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act (XXIX of 1958), hereinafter called the Act, S.13 and 14 whereof read thus: "13. Power to prepare tables of prices of produce, etc. - (I) For the purpose of determining the amount of compensation to be awarded under this Act, the Government may prepare tables for the whole or any part of the State showing all or any of the following matters: (a) the price of cocoanuts, arecanuts, pepper and paddy; (b) (2) The tables prepared under this section shall on publication be receivable in evidence and the rates and amounts therein specified shall be presumed to be the proper rates and amounts until the contrary is proved: Provided that, in so far as such tables prescribe prices of products, the presumption shall not be rebuttable except by proof of the average price as provided in S.14. "14. Values how ascertained when no table has been prepared or the presumption is rebutted. In respect of any product for which no table showing the price has been published and whenever the presumption under S.13 is rebutted, the court shall adopt, as the money value for the purpose of awarding compensation under sub-section (1) of S.7, the average price, as nearly as may be ascertainable in the taluk where the land is situated, for a period of 10 years immediately preceding the institution of the suit". On June 25,1958, when the Commissioner filed his report, no tables had been prepared by the Government as contemplated in S.13. Such tables were published for the first time only on April 25,1961. When no table has been published, the direction in S.14 is to value the produce at "the average price,...in the taluk...for a period of 10 years immediately preceding the institution of the suit". The Commissioner's fixation of the value of cocoanuts at the average price in the 12 years that preceded his report is contrary to the direction in the statute and cannot be accepted. There is no controversy on the quantum of produces reported by the Commissioner. The Munsiff has to fix the compensation for improvements afresh on the basis of the quantum of produces reported by the Commissioner and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. Shri K.C. John submitted that the Munsiff should be directed to adopt the value of produces shown in the table published by the Government in 1961 and cited Bhagavathi Kochuparvathi v. Balakrishna Pillai Chandrasekharan Pillai (1963 KLT. 711) as supporting that submission. In that decision Joseph, J., delivering the judgment of the Court, observed: "So far as S.14 is concerned it provides that the average price of commodities for a period of ten years immediately preceding the institution of the suit should be taken as the basis of valuation in respect of any product for which no table showing the price has been published or where the presumption under S.13 is rebutted. The provision applies to a case where the product is one in respect of which no table has been published. The table regarding coconuts having been published during the pendency of this Second Appeal, the same must govern the valuation of the coconut trees notwithstanding the fact that the Court of first instance as well as the lower appellate Court had decided the matter before the publication of the tables." Counsel pointed out that the present case is a parallel one as the publication of the table came to be after the decision of the lower appellate Court and before the filing of this Second Appeal and that, on the strength of the observation quoted above the Munsiff must be directed to adopt the price given in the tables. Though the passage cited above may appear to support counsel, the further observations in the decision do clearly show that the prices given in the table can be adopted only if the plaintiff does not adduce evidence of the average price of the produce concerned for the 10 years preceding the institution of the suit; for the learned judge continued: "Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent argued that the presumption arising from the tables could be rebutted by other evidence. The proviso to S.13 reads: Provided that, in so far as such tables prescribe prices of products, the presumption shall not be rebuttable except by proof of the average price as provided in S.14. ...In these circumstances it is not possible to say that there is sufficient or reliable evidence to rebut the presumption. The concurrent decisions have therefore to be set aside. We do so and remand the case to the Court of first instance for fresh decision. The Court will give an opportunity to the decreeholder¬respondent to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption arising from the tables published under S.13 in respect of coconut trees." 4. It is precisely the same thing that has to be done in this case also. Under S.14 of the Act, the appellant is entitled to rebut the presumption of S.13, namely, that the price given in the table published by the Government is the "proper rate" to be adopted, by proving that the "average price ...in the taluk where the land is situated for a period of 10 years immediately preceding the institution of the suit" is different therefrom. The appellant adduced evidence to that effect; but the Court below repelled it on a ground that appears to be fantastic. The fixation of compensation in this case is not in accordance with the law laid down in S.13 and 14 of the Act. The decision on compensation for improvements is therefore set aside and the matter remitted to the Munsiff for its refixation in accordance with the law. The Munsif will dispose of the suit within two months of the receipt of the records in his office. No costs.