MUHAMMED KUNHI Vs. ABDULKHADER HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners filed O.A. 520 of 1976 under S.80 B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act claiming kudikidappu right in the property. First respondent refuted the claim of kudikidappu and contended that the building was let out to the first revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.5/- as per Ext.D-1 rent deed dated 24-4-1966. Revenue Inspector reported the value of the building at the time of its construction as Rs.618/-. The Land Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and it has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The Appellate Authority held that the revision petitioners have claimed tenancy right in the property in S.M. 1681 of 1974 and as that claim was rejected it is not open to them to claim kudikidappu right now. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that merely because tenancy pleaded by the revision petitioners was found against there is no legal embargo in they claiming kudikidappu right and the Appellate Authority went wrong in dismissing the appeal.

(3.) The question that arises for consideration is whether a person who has set up tenancy right and failed to prove it can claim kudikidappu right Counsel for the revision petitioners pointed out that the revision petitioners have satisfied the requirements under Explanation II-A to S.2(25) of the Act to claim kudikidappu benefits in the property notwithstanding the fact that their claim of tenancy was rejected by the Land Tribunal previously. In other words, he contended that in a case where a person is able to satisfy the requirements under Explanation II-A to S.2(25) he can very well claim kudikidappu right even though his plea of tenancy was previously rejected.