Judgment :- S. Marimuthu, J. This appeal is directed questioning the judgment in L. A.R. No. 3/91 of Sub Court, Ottapalam. Respondent State acquired 0.0199 Hectares of garden land comprised in Sy. No. 20/14 of Ottapalam Taluk belonging to the claimant for the construction of Coaxial Station and staff quarters. The notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Kerala Gazette on 18.07.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer in Award No. 1/90 fixed the value of the land at Rs. 4.054/- per Are equivalent to Rs. 2000/- per cent including the improvements and the value of the building at Rs. 18,050. The claimant-appellant claimed Rs. 10.000/- per cent and Rs. 50.000/-for the building. 2. The reference Court, on examining the documents Exts. A1 to A5, Ext. R1, Exts. C1, C2 and also the evidence of the claimant, the Commissioner and RW1, enhanced the land value to Rs. 4.000/- per cent and accepted the value of the building at Rs. 18.050/- as per the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that Exts. Alto A5 documents are sufficient to enhance the value of the land at Rs. 10.000/- per cent and evidence of the Commissioner as AW.2 and also his report and plan marked as Exts. C1 and C2 are also sufficient to fix the value of the building at Rs. 50.000/-. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand would submit that in the absence of the examination of the vendor or vendee or the assignor or assignee of those documents, Exts. Al to A5, those documents cannot be relied upon for fixing the value of the land in the present proceedings and hence those documents have been rightly rejected by the Reference Court. In so far as the value of the building is concerned, the learned Government Pleader would urge that the value fixed by the Commission at Rs. 40,900/- cannot be accepted because the Commissioner is not an expert. Only the evidence of the experts can be considered for the purpose of fixing the value of the building (viz., Engineers) as provided in O. XXVI R.10A of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this context would be that when Exts. Only the evidence of the experts can be considered for the purpose of fixing the value of the building (viz., Engineers) as provided in O. XXVI R.10A of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this context would be that when Exts. Al to A5, the certified and attested copies of the sale deeds and assignment deeds were marked the respondents did not raise any objection in the trial court and therefore, it has to be presumed that the contents thereon are accepted by the respondents and hence now in the appellate stage, neither the admission of those documents nor the contents thereon can be challenged by the respondents. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Government Pleader would be that as per the settled law laid down by the Apex Court, even though such documents were admitted in the Reference Court, it does not mean that the contents thereon are accepted by the respondents and unless the vendor or vendee or the assignor or assignee of the documents is examined to establish the contents of the documents, the documents marked in the trial court have no evidentiary value in relation to the contents. On account of the above rival submission of both sides, the question of law on this aspect can be examined. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Parvathi Amma (19T3 KLT 1019) has held thus: "It is the duty of the State in land acquisition cases to examine persons connected with the execution of documents to prove the documents. The Court cannot act upon copies of registered sale deeds without the evidence of such persons. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Parvathi Amma (19T3 KLT 1019) has held thus: "It is the duty of the State in land acquisition cases to examine persons connected with the execution of documents to prove the documents. The Court cannot act upon copies of registered sale deeds without the evidence of such persons. When reliance is placed upon comparable documents for the purpose of proving the value of the acquired lands, the Court, must be in a position to act upon such documents by being appraised of the circumstances attending upon the execution of such documents, the nature and condition of the properties and other relevant matters and that can be made available only by the evidence of the witnesses who are liable to speak to the circumstances attending on the execution of the documents." The Supreme Court in a case reported in Parameshwari Devi v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ann (AIR 1994 SC 1142) has laid down the following principle: "It is the duty of claimant to prove sale deeds by adducing evidence either of vendor or vendee or attesting witness of passing of the consideration under the sale deed, to prove that the sale transactions are genuine transactions between the willing vendor and willing vendee; that the consideration had in fact been passed under the document duly registered, represent the prevailing market value; and also the lands under the acquisition and the lands concerning the sale are similarly situated and possessed of same or similar nature, advantages etc. the burden is always on the claimant and where the claimant did not make any effort in the said regard to discharge the burden, rejection of the sale deeds produced by him, in support of his claim of compensation would be proper." In P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1995) 2 SCC 305, the Supreme Court held thus: 'But when the LAO or the Collector has made his award based on the contents of documents as found in the registers kept under the registration act and produces registration copies of such documents in support of his award in Court, they could be regarded acceptable as evidence by Court, given in support of the award unless it is shown by contra evidence on behalf of the claimants that such documents could not have been relied upon by the Collector or LAO in making the award. It would be so for the reason that when the LAO produces in Court registration (certified) copies of those documents which he had made the basis for determining the market value, that would be only to support his award and not to establish something independent of the award. If that be so, when such documents are produced on behalf of the LAO in Court, they cannot be rejected on the ground that the witnesses associated with those documents cannot be examined by the LAO in as much as even without producing such documents he can rely upon the award made by him to show that he had looked into those documents and he had determined the market value on their basis. Hence, the mere fact that witnesses associated with such certified copies of documents produced as evidence in Court were not examined on behalf of the LAO will not in any way affect the award of the LAO if he had determined the market value of the acquired land having perused those documents as found in the registers kept under the Registration Act or their certified copies before determining the market value of those lands on the basis of such documents." Another Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Ramachandran Nair, (1996 (1) KLT 658) following the principle laid down in P. Ram Reddy's case (stated supra) held thus: "We find that 1995 (2) SCC 305 is the only case where the question whether the vendor or vendee of the basic document has to be examined by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Court to support the award has come up for specific consideration. It has been held that even without examining the vendor or vendee the land acquisition officer can rely on the certified copy of the document to support his award, if he had relied on those documents for making the award. We ate therefore, of the view that there is no merit in the contention that 1995 (2) SCC 305 was decided per incuriam and therefore the dictum laid down therein cannot be relied on". On account of the above principles laid down by this Court it is obviously clear that for the limited purpose of the documents being marked without examining the vendor or the vendee, and being relied upon the LAO it can be acted upon. But in so far as the documents which were produced before the reference Court are concerned, when the contents are denied by the opposite party, the mere marking of the documents is not sufficient to speak of the contents of the documents. Therefore, as rightly held by the Supreme Court in Parameshwari Devi's case (stated supra) for the purpose of establishing the contents either the vendor or the vendee of the document has to be examined. When on the above principle of law, Exts. A1 to A5 are examined, they can be rightly rejected since the vendor or vendee is not examined. In addition to it, Exts. Al & A2 had been executed, long after S.4(1) notification that is above five months. In so far as Exts. When on the above principle of law, Exts. A1 to A5 are examined, they can be rightly rejected since the vendor or vendee is not examined. In addition to it, Exts. Al & A2 had been executed, long after S.4(1) notification that is above five months. In so far as Exts. A3 to A5 are concerned, it is also necessary to make reference that there is no evidence on the claimants side that the properties covered by Exts. A3 to A5 are similar in value and they have got similar potentiality or situated near the properties acquired. Those criteria can be rightly spoken out only by any one of the parties to the said document. Therefore, those documents have been rightly rejected by the Court below. However, on examining the facts available on record, I feel that the value of one cent fixed at Rs. 4.000/- by the reference court seems to be fair and reasonable. 5. So far as the value fixed for the building is concerned, there is serious dispute as between the parties as adverted to above. The reference court has adopted the value of the building at Rs. 18,050/- as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Commissioner who has been examined as AW. 2 and his report and plan marked as Exts. C1 and C2 are sufficient to fix the value of the building at Rs. 40.900/-. According to the learned counsel advocates are also appointed as Commissioners under O. XXVI R.9 CPC for the purpose of estimating the value of the buildings in dispute and such application commissioner in case of finding difficulty in fixing the value of the entire building or any portion of the building, will seek the assistance of an expert like an Engineer. But when they are capable of fixing reasonable and fair price of the building within their common knowledge, they will not seek the assistance of an Engineer and in such cases their reports can be acted upon by the Courts when they satisfy mind of the Courts. In the instant case, the Commissioner in fixing the value of the building at Rs. 40,900/- has examined the value of each article, labour charges, etc. used for the construction. 6. In the instant case, the Commissioner in fixing the value of the building at Rs. 40,900/- has examined the value of each article, labour charges, etc. used for the construction. 6. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand, in the matter of fixing the value of the building would contend that the Advocate appointed as a Commissioner is not an expert and an expert alone (Engineer) can fix the value of the building as provided in R.10A of O. XXVI CPC on account of the above submissions of both the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader, the point of law on this aspect can be analysed. No doubt as per R.10A of O. XXVI CPC, for scientific investigation, the opinion of an expert can be sought for. Rr.9 and 10A of O.XXVI CPC for reference can be extracted hereunder: "9. Commissions to make local investigation:- In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute or of ascertaining the market value of any property or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a Commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such Commission shall be issued. The Court shall be bound by such rules. 10A. Commissions for scientific investigation:- (1) Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice to do so, issue a Commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court". As per the above rules, it is patently clear that it is not mandatory that the Court must always seek the assistance of an expert for a scientific investigation. It is the opinion of the Court, viz., if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice, to ask for the opinion of an expert. If the Court is satisfied that the report of the Advocate Commissioner is sufficient for a satisfactory adjudication. It is the opinion of the Court, viz., if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interest of justice, to ask for the opinion of an expert. If the Court is satisfied that the report of the Advocate Commissioner is sufficient for a satisfactory adjudication. The Court can rightly act upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed under R.9 of O. XXVI CPC. A Division Bench of this Court in Mariam v. State (1980 KLT 957) has held thus: "The practice of letting in evidence of deeds of sale of properties with buildings, without adducing independent evidence as to value of buildings, seems to persist still in many courts. It would be a sheer waste of time to produce evidence of such sale deeds unless parties take care to adduce evidence of the value of the buildings standing on the lands sold. It is usual practice for the vendor or the vendee to speak in Court about the estimation of the value of the building standing in the property as if that would be. The opinion of the party is not the opinion of an expert which opinion alone would be relevant in a Court. In the absence of any attempt to obtain the evidence of an expert, such as by the issue of a Commission, the document of sale of a property with a building thereon would be of very little value as evidence of transaction in regard to comparable properties. The Courts would be justified in such circumstances in refusing to consider such evidence as of any value". Thus while determining the value of the land, the value of the building has to be determined on the opinion of an expert and the opinion of the party is not sufficient. It is not the view of the above Bench that the value of the building fixed by the Advocate Commissioner should not be acted upon when it is fair and reasonable. In this context it is also relevant to refer to R.9 of O. XXVI CPC once again, which specifically states that a Commissioner can be appointed for assessing the market value of the property. In this context it is also relevant to refer to R.9 of O. XXVI CPC once again, which specifically states that a Commissioner can be appointed for assessing the market value of the property. Immovable property is defined in S.3 of the Transfer of Property Act thus: "Immovable Property" does not include standing timber, crops or grass." In the General Clauses Act in sub-s.(26) of S.3, immovable property is defined thus: "Immovable Property" shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth." For terminating the lease of immovable property, other than agricultural purpose, fifteen days notice is required under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. This wing of the Section relating to immovable property takes in building. Therefore, an Advocate Commissioner can be rightly appointed for assessing the market value of the building under R.9 of O. XXVI CPC. In investigating this matter, I can also refer to another decision in Kerala State Housing Board v. Reghunadhan (1988 (2) KLT 331) wherein this Court has held as follows: "Only for the purpose of a scientific, technical or expert investigation, a technically qualified person can be appointed as Commissioner, under this rule and that too only, if the Court is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the interest of justice to issue a Commission to such a person. This in short is the scheme of the Rules. The loss and damages, the plaintiff is alleged to have suffered requires to be established by the plaintiff by producing materials before the Court. This prayer, on a reading of it, makes it clear that the suit is one for damage simplicitor. No scientific investigation therefore is warranted. The order appointing the Commissioner therefore is liable to be set aside." The Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. S.O. Tumari (AIR 1995 SC 840) has held thus: "Therefore, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before the Court giving market value of the acquired lands, the Court may choose to act upon such report for determination of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired lands. If the data or the material on the basis of which such report is based is produced before the Court and the authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted therein in correct". To this decision, the view of the Supreme Court is that the data given by the experts can be acted upon, if the same is given by proper and good method of valuation. So the above decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court in my view do not say that Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for valuing the buildings in dispute. In the instant case it seems that one of the jobs allotted to the Commissioner was to fix the value of the building. An Advocate Commissioner though not a scientific expert can assess the value of the building and if the value is on the authentic data that can be acted upon. As adverted above it is not mandatory that the Court must appoint only an expert for fixing the value of the building. Only when the Court thinks it necessary and expedient in the interest of justice, an engineer can be asked for fixing the value of the building. In these above circumstances I am of the view that an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed for the purpose of fixing the value and if he finds any difficulty in fixing fair and reasonable value of the building or any portion of the building or any of the articles used for the construction of the building he can seek the assistance of an engineer with the permission of the Court. In the instant case I went through the report and plan of the Commissioner and also his evidence as A.W.2. The report and plan would show the location of important institution, government offices etc. within half a kilometre from the acquired land. For fixing the value of the building the Commissioner has adopted the following data: The present market value of the above building will be Rs. 40,900/-" 7. I examined the above data given by the commissioner, who has possessed enough experience, the location of the property acquired, the plinth area and the rooms in the building. The building measures 40 ft. x 16ft. and it has got four rooms and a verandah on the back side. There are six sets of doors and four sets of windows. I examined the above data given by the commissioner, who has possessed enough experience, the location of the property acquired, the plinth area and the rooms in the building. The building measures 40 ft. x 16ft. and it has got four rooms and a verandah on the back side. There are six sets of doors and four sets of windows. When the above structures of the building are examined, I feel that fixing the value of the building at Rs. 40,900/- at the time of the visit of the Commissioner in December, 1991 seems to be more reasonable. However, it is subject to the depreciation value. The evidence of the Commissioner as A.W.2 is strengthening his report and plan. 8. This Court in Bhavani Ramalakshmi v. State of Kerala (1990 (2) KLT 581) has held as to how the depreciation value and the amount required for the maintenance of the building ha veto be deducted from the total value of the building. This Court has held thus: "What is relevant for the purpose of valuing the building is not the schedule of rates of the Public Works Department. The claimant is entitled to get the market value of the building as on the relevant date. Where the subject to be valued is a building part from the site, the principle of fixing value by ascertaining the cost of reproducing the building at relevant time and then allowing for depreciation in consideration of age of the building and for the costs of such repairs as might be required apart from depreciation is quite a well known and a recognised method of valuing building for the purpose of compensation. That method is not in any way affected by the land acquisition." This Court in that judgment has followed the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Harichand v. Secretary of State (AIR 1939 P.C. 235) and Secretary to State v. Varian Khanna Khanna(AIR 1942 P.C. 35). The above said two decisions of the Privy Council were also considered and approved by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. C.L Palu (1979 (3) SCC 780). The above said two decisions of the Privy Council were also considered and approved by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. C.L Palu (1979 (3) SCC 780). In the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the mode to be adopted towards deduction of the depreciation value and also the amount required for the maintenance of the building have been decided and the buildings have been classified into first class buildings and second class buildings. 9. In the instant case, no doubt, there is no clear evidence whether the building is a first class building or second class building. The age of the building as found in the report of the Commissioner is about 20 years. Therefore, even if the building in dispute is taken as first class building for the first five years no deduction can be made towards depreciation and for the remaining years 5 to 6% has to be deducted for every year and due allowance also has to be made for maintenance and repairs of the building. When that mode is adopted towards the depreciation value, the amount comes to about Rs. 21,000/-. As pointed out above, there is no evidence on the appellant's side whether it is a first class building or a second class building. There are also rooms with tiled roofing as pointed out by the Commissioner. The above judgments of the Supreme Court would al so show that due allowances have to be made towards maintenance and repairs. When these circumstances are carefully examined on the basis of the principle laid down by the Privy Council, this Court and the Supreme Court, the price of the building can be rightly determined at Rs. 18,050/- as fixed by the reference court after deducting the depreciation value. 10. In these above circumstances, I am of the view that the judgment and decree of the reference Court need not be intervened by this Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. \