KRISHNA PILLAI Vs. PONNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for examination is as to the respondent's status as a kudikidappukari in respect of a hut in a mortgaged property in which she claims that she was residing. A decree for redemption having been passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, an objection was raised in execution proceedings to the effect that the respondent in this case has the status of a kudikidappukari under S.2(25) of the Kerala Lend Reforms Act. What is invoked for this purpose is Explanation IV of S.2(25), which reads as follows:

(2.) The order of the Land Tribunal only specifies one of the conditions viz., that the respondent mortgages was residing in a hut already in existence on the mortgaged land. The Land Tribunal has not applied its mind to the other two requirements of clause (a) and (b) of Explanation IV of S.2(25). The respondent has also not placed any material to establish the two conditions specified in clause (a) and (b) of Explanation IV. As the burden was on the respondent, it was for her to place necessary evidence to satisfy all the conditions of deemed status of a kudikidappukari in respect of the hut in question. The fact that the petitioner remained absent on several days of hearing does not come to the aid of the respondent, as the burden is on her of placing, evidence to satisfy all the ingredients. Though there is a report of the authorised officer, which undoubtedly the respondent can rely upon to establish her case, the same also does not contain any material to prove the conditions specified in clause (a) and (b) of Explanation IV. If the authorised officers reported is not adequate for the respondent to establish her case, nothing prevents her from adducing evidence in respect of the two conditions. It is not her case, that she was denied an opportunity to place evidence before the Land Tribunal in this behalf. The respondent not having availed of the opportunity to lead evidence, she cannot make any complaint in this revision petition to contend that she had no opportunity and therefore the matter should be remitted for fresh disposal, after giving her an opportunity of leading evidence. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case in which the respondent should be given any opportunity as she had ample opportunity in this behalf before the Land Tribunal. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the respondent not having led any evidence to prove the conditions specified in clause (a) and (b) of Explanation IV of S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, she has failed to establish her status as a kudikidappukari.