RAVEENDRAN ACHARY Vs. GAURI PONNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order in A.A.No. 280/1998 on the file of the Appellate Authority (LR) Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioners are children of late Kesavan Achari Krishnan Achari and late lekshmi Gauri. Krishnan Achari was kudikidppukaran in the property comprised in Survey No. 1662 of Vanchiyoor village. Jenmi of the property was one Raman Pillai Parameswaran Pillai, Menachivila veedu, Eravipuram muri, Eravipuram village. Krishnan Achari filed O.A.No 1479 of 1979 under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for purchase of Kudikidappu before the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent is the daughter of Parameswaran Achari through Lakshmi Gauri, mother of the petitioners. The first respondent also was residing with Krishnan Achari in the aforesaid kudikidappu as a member of the family. After her marriage with Bhaskaran Achari, they continued to live in the house as members of the family. While so Bhaskaran Achari filed O.S.No. 1005/1976 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram for a declaration that he has constructed half of the building situated in the kudikidappu and claimed permanent injunction against Krishnan Achari from dispossessing him from the said house. The said suit was dismissed finding that the entire property covered by the purchase certificate absolutely belong to Krishnan Achari. The Munsiff court also found that a portion of the construction has been made by Bhaskaran Achari also. Against the said judgment, both the parties filed appeals before the appellate court. Thereafter Krishnan Achari filed O.S.No.273 of 1978 before the 2nd Additional 'Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the first respondent and her husband Bhaskaran Achari for mandatory injunction to vacate the portion of the building occupied by them. The suit was decreed and directed the first respondent and her husband to vacate the building. The first respondent and her husband preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree and the appellate court confirmed the decision of the Trial Court. While the matter was pending before the Civil Court, the first respondent filed O.A. No. 20 of 1979 before the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram for purchase of kudikidappu against late Krishnan Achari. The Land Tribunal dismissed the application. Against the said order of the Land Tribunal, the first respondent herein filed A.A. No. 345 of 1979. The appellate authority remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

(2.) Against the order of remand, late Krishnan Achary filed O.P. No. 787 of 1982 before this court and this Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the matter and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. In the meanwhile Krishnan Achary died and the revision petitioners and their mother were impleaded as additional respondents. The appellate authority found that the first respondent is eligible for kudikidappu and remanded the matter. The first respondent also filed an appeal against the order in O.A. No. 1479 of 1997 as A.A. No.222 of 1979 with an application to condone the delay. The said delay petition and the appeal were dismissed. In the meanwhile the petitioners challenged the order of the appellate authority remanding the matter by filing O.P.No. 11309 of 1993 before this Court and this Court set aside the order of remand of the appellate authority and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Thereafter the Land Tribunal dismissed the application of the first respondent and declared that she is not entitled to get kudikidappu from a kudikidappukaran being a member of the family. Against the said order, the first respondent preferred A.A. No.280 of 1998 before the Appellate Authority and the appellate authority allowed the appeal * and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal. As per the order, the first respondent is entitled to kudikidappu of one and half cents of property with the building. During the pendency of these proceedings, the mother also expired on 7-6-1999. During her lifetime she executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioners bequeathing her l\3rd share over the kudikidappu. The order of the appellate authority is challenged in this revision.

(3.) Heard both sides. The question to be considered is whether the judgment under challenge is liable to be set aside. Admittedly purchase certificate was obtained by Krishnan Achary, the father of the petitioners as per order in O.A.No. 1479 of 1979 of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The appeal filed against the said order by the 1st respondent herein was also dismissed. The case of the first respondent herein is that she is a kudikidappukari under late Krishnan Achary. Admittedly in respect of the petition schedule property, the predecessor of the petitioners and the first respondent and her husband filed civil suits claiming various reliefs. It is in evidence that the first respondent is the daughter of one Parameswaran Achary, brother of late Krishnan Achary, through the mother of the petitioners. The specific case of late Krishnan Achary was that the first respondent was rescinding in the kudikidappu property as a member of the family. The fact that the first respondent is the daughter of Parameswaran Achary and Lekshmi Gauri is not disputed by the first respondent. She was only a minor when she started residence in the kudikidappu along with her mother. The report of the authorised officer and also the allegations in the suit filed by Bhaskaran Achari, husband of the 1st respondent, would clearly show that the first respondent is claiming kudikidappu in respect of a portion of the building. The evidence on record shows that Bhaskaran Achary, the husband of the first respondent filed O.S. No. 1005 of 1976 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram for a declaration that he has constructed half of the building situated in the kudikidappu and claimed permanent injunction against Krishnan Achary dispossessing him from the house. The said suit was dismissed and the appeal also was dismissed. So it is clear from the contention of the parties that the first respondent is claiming kudikidappu right in respect of part of a building. Admittedly Krishnan Achary was the kudikidappukaran of one Raman Pillai, Parameswaran Pillai and purchase certificate was obtained in his name. The report of the authorised officer would show that the first respondent is residing in a portion of the dwelling house. Her residence was as a member of the family along with Krishnan Achary and her mother Gauri. Since the first respondent is claiming Kudikidappu right in respect of part of the building, she is not entitled to kudikidappu right. A portion of the building is not a kudikidappu as defined in the Land Reforms Act. Further Krishnan Achary obtained the property as kudikidappu and purchase certificate was also issued in his name which is in force. So the first respondent is not entitled to get any kudikidappu right and the order of the appellate authority is liable to be dismissed. Hence the order of the Land Tribunal is confirmed and the judgment of the appellate authority is dismissed.