VENKATACHALAJH, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant commissioner, Mangalore are directed against the common award and separate decrees dt. 19-12-1969 made in OP. Nos. 144 and 187 of 1966 respectively, on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 20,000 per acre to Rs. 60,000 per acre in respect of 3 acres and 18 cents of land in TS. 305/1b and 2 acres and 62 cents of land in TS. 305j3a in Kodialbail, Mangalore City, acquired for the construction of a Central Warehouse, pursuant to the notification under s. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Gazette dt. 9-2-1961. ( 2 ) THE claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. One lakh per acre before the Land Acquisition Officer. The LAO determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 20,000 per acre. The claimants not having accepted the award, sought for reference under S. 18 of the land Acquisition Act, to the Civil Court in proceedings pursuant to which the Court below fixed the market value at Rs. 60,000 per acre. The enhancement is challenged in these appeals. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed and indeed, it is common ground between the parties that the acquired lands though assessed as agricultural lands are ituated within Mangalore Town and have potentialities for, being used for building purposea. ( 4 ) BEFORE the Court below, the claimants relied upon certain sale deeds respecting transactions of sale of lands situate in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands. Ext. C3, with reference to which CW. 3 is examined, is the registration copy of the sale deed dt. 21-9-1961 pertaining to an extent of 25 cents of lands stated to be situate in what is referred to as the Pintolane' in Mangalore. Item 9' in Ext. C4, the sale statistics referred to by the appellant in his award again refers to a transaction of sale dt. 10-1-1959 of 25 cents of land. These two transactions do not relate to transactions of similar lands in extent and are not shown to relate to land possessing the same degree of potentialities. However the sale deed dated 31-1-1962 Ext. C2 pertaining as it does, to land in the neighbourhood is of some evidentiary value. ( 5 ) THE interest conveyed under the said Ext. These two transactions do not relate to transactions of similar lands in extent and are not shown to relate to land possessing the same degree of potentialities. However the sale deed dated 31-1-1962 Ext. C2 pertaining as it does, to land in the neighbourhood is of some evidentiary value. ( 5 ) THE interest conveyed under the said Ext. C2 is an undivided 2/12th (or one-sixth) share in 46| cents of land in TS. 281/1a and 282 of kodialbail, Mangalore City. The said undivided 2/12th share was conveyed for a price which is stated to work out, approximately, to Rs. 75,000 an acre. The power-of-attorney holder of one of the vendors under Ext c2 has been examined as CW. 2. CW. 2 is an Advocate practising in Mangalore. He has stated thati the negotiations for the transaction which culminated in the sale deed Ext. C2 and agreement as to price took place long prior to the actual date of Ext. C2. It is further borne out by his evidence that the lands concerned in Ext. C2 were proximal in location to the acquired land and that the acquired lands, indeed, enjoyed a more prominent location. The Court below has accepted the transaction of sale under Ext. C2 as an instance of sale of similar lands. However, it has proceeded to make a reduction on the view that the date of the preliminary notification in the present case was a year earlier than the date of Ext. C2. But the said sale deed Ext. C2 itself contains recitals that a power-of- attorney was executed by one of the vendors under Ext. C2 in favour of cw. 2 in January 1961 authorising the latter to execute the sale deed and present the same for registration. Nothing has been elicited in the course of the cross-examination of CW. 2 to discredit his version that the transaction under Ext. C2 had, in fact, been finalised a year earlier than 31-1-62. The view of the Court below that some deduction is necessary on the basis that Ext. C2 was a year later than the date of the preliminary notification, is not correct. Disagreeing with the view of the Court below in this behalf and accepting the evidence of CW. 2 we hold that the negotiations preceding and price fixed under Ext. The view of the Court below that some deduction is necessary on the basis that Ext. C2 was a year later than the date of the preliminary notification, is not correct. Disagreeing with the view of the Court below in this behalf and accepting the evidence of CW. 2 we hold that the negotiations preceding and price fixed under Ext. C2 were contemporaneous with the period of the publication of the preliminary notification in the present case. However, we are of the view that Ext. C2 relating to a small bit of land could Only represent the retail value of similar lands at or about the time of the preliminary notification. ( 6 ) IT is however urged for the claimants that the price fetched under ext. C2 represents the price secured for an undivided fractional interest in the property and the same cannot be taken to be the price of the land, had it been put up for sale as a specific and divided piece of land. This argument is not without merit. It is common knowledge and settled principle that a property, when sold in fractional shares, fetches a lesser price than what it would otherwise fetch if the whole interest in the property is conveyed. Likewise if an undivided interest in immoveable property is sold, it fetches a lesser price than what that interest if reduced to pos- session after the process of partition would fetch. This principle finds support in the following enunciation in 'modem Methods of Valuation' by David M. Lawrance, W. H. Rees and W. Britton (6th Edn, 1971) at page 44:" It is generally recognised, however, that a share in property is less attractive to prospective investors than absolute ownership, owing to the very limited control which the owner of the share has over the property as a whole. To allow for this factor a deduction of eay 10 per cent is often made from the estimated value of the share. Thus, if the free-hold value of certain property is 2,000, the value of a quarter share in that property might be estimated as follows: one-quarter of 2,000. . 500 deduct 10% to allow for the restricted demand for this type of investment. . 50 market value of owner's share. . 450 the suggested figure of 10 per cent is merely the normal allowance. There is nothing fixed or arbitrary about it. . 500 deduct 10% to allow for the restricted demand for this type of investment. . 50 market value of owner's share. . 450 the suggested figure of 10 per cent is merely the normal allowance. There is nothing fixed or arbitrary about it. If there are many shares in the property or if the property is of a type, such as building land, where sale ownership and control of development is particularly desirable, a higher allowance than 10% may be justified. On the other hand, if the interest is of a purelv investment character such as half share in long term freehold ground rents-a deduction of 10 per cent may be considered excessive. The size of the share should also be considered when deciding on the percentage deduction. As a rule, the smaller the share, the larger should be the deduction. "in 'tax Valuations (Immoveable Properties)' by Roshan Nanavati at page 181, the same principle is stated in terms following :" The undivided shares, rights and interests are less attractive to the prudent purchasers on account of a number of factors like absence of absolute ownership, limited control, expense of partition suits, meeting of minds on a number of problems connected with the maintenance, management and development of the property etc, and as such these shares are valued less'by about 10 per cent of their fair market value. There is no rigidity about this 10 per cent allowance, it can be more or less depending upon the circumstances of each case like number of co-owners, extent of their shares (resulting in twin division, triple division, quadruple division etc), relationship between co-owners etc. It should be noted that such undivided share, right and interest in a property has got a limited market". It is a matter of common knowledge and experience that a property put up for sale becomes a good selling proposition and becomes attractive In the market in a measure inversely proportional to the fractional interests in which it is offered for sale. ( 7 ) THE two vendors under Ext. C2 sold their undivided 1/12th share each in 46f cents of land. The purchaser would have to work out a partition of the 1/6th share acquired from the vendors by appropriate further steps and if need should arise by a properly constituted action for partition and reduce his interest to possession. ( 7 ) THE two vendors under Ext. C2 sold their undivided 1/12th share each in 46f cents of land. The purchaser would have to work out a partition of the 1/6th share acquired from the vendors by appropriate further steps and if need should arise by a properly constituted action for partition and reduce his interest to possession. In this context the circumstance that a suitor in an action for partition incurs expenditure in a measure which is far in excess of what is, usually, compensated in terms of costs and that litigations in this behalf are notoriously time-consuming cannot also he ignored. The smallness of the extent, the nature of the steps involved to have it reduced to possession, time-factor involved in the process, the expenditure concerned therewith and the like would all indicate that the disadvantage for the purchaser, expressed in terms of money, would be far greater than a deduction of 10 per cent indicated in the above enunciation. That could only be a rule of general guidance. Having regard to all the circumstances, we think that we will not be in error in adding to the value of Ext. C2 a sum equivalent to 17 per cent thereof as representing the proper market value of the properties sold under Ext. C2. With this addition of 17 per cent, the value of the lands conveyed under ext. C2 works out to about Rs. 88,000 per acre. This indicates the retail price of the lands. ( 8 ) IN the present case, there is no evidence of sale of similar lands wholesale. There is also no acceptable evidence on record to show what would be the gross realisation from the sale of the acquired lands if they had been laid out into plots and sold in retail. In the absence of this material, the only course open to us in the matter of valuation of acquired land would be to arrive at the wholesale value of the lands from the retail value of similar lands as indicated in Ext. C2, applying the Chief Justice macleod's Rule. In Bombay Improvement Trust v. Mervanji Mcmekji maistry, AIR. 1926 Bom. 420. Macleod, CJ, has stated a simple method of valuation of land wholesale from the retail price and that method is to take anything between one-half and one-third, according to circumstances, of the expected gross valuation, as the wholesale price. C2, applying the Chief Justice macleod's Rule. In Bombay Improvement Trust v. Mervanji Mcmekji maistry, AIR. 1926 Bom. 420. Macleod, CJ, has stated a simple method of valuation of land wholesale from the retail price and that method is to take anything between one-half and one-third, according to circumstances, of the expected gross valuation, as the wholesale price. This principle enunciated by macleod, CJ, in the said case has been accepted by this Court in Assistant commr and Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. Bharat Oil Mills, 1973 (2) Myslj. 187. ( 9 ) THERE is evidence on record to show that the lands acquired are well located, bounded on three sides by roads. The two survey numbers acquired in the two cases constitute a single plot and they are situated in a residential locality where, according to the evidence, there is demand for building sites. It also appears from the evidence that the plots are very close to Pentlandpet and are only 50 to 60 yards away from Canara high School, Urva. It is also in evidence that buildings have come up around the lands and that the Municipal Officers' quarters are just by their side. The plots are only 2 furlongs away from the Officers' quarters and half a mile away from Urva Market and from the Lady Hill Girls high School. Having regard to this advantageous location and also to the fact that the acquired lands are bounded by roads on three sides, in arriving at the wholesale price from the retail price, in our opinion, the maximum permissible of 50 tier cent of the retail price required to be adopted. This brings the wholesale value of the land to about Rs. 44,000, which may be rounded off to Rs. 45,000 per acre. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, we allow these appeals in part and in modification of the award and decrees of the Court below reduce the market value of the acquired lands from Rs. 60,000 fixed by the Court below to Rs. 45,000 per acre. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. --- *** --- .