ASSANKUNHI HAJI Vs. RUGMINI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that calls for decision in this C. R. P. is whether a person who was permitted to occupy a cow shed is a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of S. 2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Fact, 1963 (for short 'the act ).

(2.) A destitute maid servant who had no abode to stay had to reside in a cow shed as per permission Of her master to whom it belonged, was fighting to retain that shelter ever after 1977 before the Land Tribunal, the appellate Authority and now before this court. Facts in brief are as follows: First respondent instituted O. A. 272 of 1977 under S. 80-B of the Act for purchase of kudikidappu. She was the maid servant of the 2nd respondent. In 1967 the second respondent permitted her to occupy a cow shed that belonged to him, she made suitable alterations in the same and started to reside therein. Second respondent later sold the property under Ext. B1 to the 3rd respondent. Pending the O. A. the revision petitioner purchased the same. Revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent contested the claim of the first respondent. Land Tribunal dismissed the O. A. ; against the said decision first respondent preferred A. A. 98 of 1979 before the appellate authority. appellate authority allowed the appeal and remanded the O. A. for fresh disposal. Again the Land Tribunal dismissed the O. A. She went in appeal; A 18 of 1984 was allowed. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the said judgment.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per Explanation II, but should be a dwelling house and since cattle shed or cow shed neither is structurally suitable nor is it intended for human habitation; it cannot answer the description of "dwelling house" consequently it is not a dwelling house within the meaning of S. 2 (25) of the Act. The emphasis was on the literal meaning of "dwelling house". With reference to an argument that, if only the building was intended to be a dwelling house when it was constructed, can it be a kudikidappu; in the decision in Joseph v. Antony (1970 KLT 534) it is observed in para. 6: "the reasoning that only if the building was intended to be a dwelling house when constructed can it be a kudikidappu appears to be fallacious Of course, the meaning to be attributed to words of common use but elastic import depends on the context and statutory purpose. Having due regard to the beneficent object of this provision, I think it right to accept the view that a house is a dwelling-house if it is used for dwelling and not only if, to begin with, it was built for a dwelling house. The expression is descriptive of existing use and not indicative of original purpose".