KUMARAN Vs. DIVAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title is the appellant. Both the courts below decreed the suit.

(2.) There is no dispute regarding the facts of the case. The property belonged to the plaintiffs father who gifted the same to the plaintiff under Ext. A-3. Plaintiffs father put up a house and permitted the defendant's father to stay in the house. According to the plaintiff, defendant and his brother jointly owned .58 cents of land which they obtained in 1966. In a partition in the year 1978, evidenced by Ext. A-2, between the defendant and his brother he was allotted 29 cents of land which is fit for erecting a homestead and accordingly, even if the defendant is a kudikidappukaran he is liable to be evicted.

(3.) There is no dispute regarding the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The only contention raised by the defendant is that he is a kudikidappukaran as on 1-1-1970 and in that view of the matter he is not liable to be evicted from the suit property. According to the defendant as on 1-1-1970 he had no property of his own and the subsequent acquisition of 29 cents of land will not disentitle him from claiming fixity of tenure as kudikidappukaran.