PUSHKARAN Vs. C K SARADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of eviction passed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the landlord and tenant, when executed was obstructed by the appellant resorting to the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He claimed kudikidappu over the building. He has preferred this appeal challenging the concurrent decision rendered by the execution court and also the lower appellate court negativing his claim of kudikidappu. Application moved by him for claiming kudikidappu is pending for consideration before the Land Tribunal and after notices were issued in that proceeding, a compromise was entered into by the landlord and his father, shown as the tenant in the rent control proceedings, and by virtue of such a compromise, an order of eviction was passed, but, it is not binding on the appellant as he is having an independent right to claim kudikidappu right over the building, was his case for obstructing the order of eviction passed by the execution court. The execution court, on the facts and circumstances presented and materials produced, found no merit in the claim raised by the appellant to obstruct the eviction order passed against his father on the basis of the compromise with the landlord. In evidence, the obstructor/appellant conceded that he was born and brought up in the building covered by the orders of eviction over which he claimed an independent right of kudikidappu. His claim that the building (hut) was constructed by his grand father and so much so, he has got an independent right of kudikidappu over the same, and, therefore, the orders of eviction passed on compromise with his father, is not binding on him was found to be bereft of any merit by the execution court, and also the first appellate court even assuming that the hut was constructed by his grand father, I fail to understand how the appellant could claim right over that building as a kudikidappukaran when he is having occupation over that building only under his father. The claim of independent right to sustain the status of a kudikidappukaran over the building in the case of the obstructor/appellant being totally absent in the present case even on the claim advanced by him, the obstruction raised by him against the orders of eviction was rightly and correctly repelled by the execution court and that was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. There is no merit in the appeal, and it is dismissed.