ACHUTHAN Vs. SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition was disposed of once ex parte by the learned Chief Justice: and since the respondent filed CMP. No. 5338 of 1971 claiming that he had no notice of the revision and the said petition has been allowed, the revision petition is reheard.

(2.) The short question in the revision petition is whether a person loses his right as kudikidappukaran if his wife or tarwad is possessed of properties.

(3.) The way the District Judge has approached the question borders on the absurd. The reasoning of the District Judge is that under S.2(25) of Act 1 of 1964 'kudikidappukaran' means a person who has neither a homestead nor any land either as owner or as tenant in possession, on which he could erect a homestead; that under S.2(43) 'person' includes, inter alia, a family or a joint family; that under S.2(14) 'family' means husband, wife and their minor children; and that, therefore, if a member of a family like the wife possesses properties, her husband, who claims to be a kudikidappukaran, loses, that right, and similarly, if his tarwad possesses properties, the tarwad being itself a person and he being a member of the tarwad, again loses his right.