UNICHEKKI LAKSHMI Vs. KRISHNAN PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the appellant and he seeks, in this suit, to evict the defendant who claims fixity by virtue of his being a Kudikidappukaran. Both courts have negatived the claim of the plaintiff and the point pressed before me is that the requirement of the landlord to provide a building for her grandson will attract S.75(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1964. The preliminary impediment in the way of the landlord is that S.75(2) contains a restrictive provision in regard to the membership of the family of the landlord. Loosely understood, may be the children and grandchildren of a person who are dependent on him or, look up to him for help may be embraced by the term 'family' particularly in a country like India where the institution of joint family, with its wealth of population, has taken root. But the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, has taken care to define the expression 'family' in S.2(14) which reads:

(2.) But this is not the end of the matter. Counsel for the appellant contends that the defendant is not a Kudikidappukaran as now defined, that is to say, within the meaning of S.2(25) of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969. It is true that there are certain restrictive factors incorporated in the amended statute and if the claimant of the kudikidappu has a certain extent of land in excess of want is specified in the statute, he ceases to be a kudikidappukaran and cannot resist eviction under S.75(2). There is no factual foundation yet made for this contention of the appellant, but he must be given an opportunity to prove the necessary facts since the amendment itself came in only at a time when the p resent second appeal was pending.

(3.) In conclusion, I confirm the finding of the court below that the appellant is not entitled to urge the building purposes of his grandson as justifying eviction, but the question as to whether under the amended definition in S.2(25) of the Act, the respondent can at all claim to be a kudikidappukaran is left to be decided by the Trial Court. S.125 of the Act will have to be considered by the learned Munsiff in this context. The decree will be set aside to the limited extent indicated above, that is to say, the Trial Court will go into the question whether the defendant is a kudikidappukaran as per the present law, subject as I said earlier, to the provisions of S.125. A decree will be passed granting the plaintiff the relief claimed or rejecting it after deciding the only issue left open as to whether the defendant is a kudikidappukaran or not. The appeal is allowed to this very limited extent. Parties will bear their costs in this appeal.