RAMAN PILLAY Vs. CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A landowner who succeeded before the Land Tribunal and lost before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alleppey, in relation to an application filed by the respondent in this petition under S.80B of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, is the revision petitioner. The respondent claimed benefits under the Act alleging that he is a "kudikidappukaran" as defined in the Act. The action was resisted by the revision petitioner land owner on the ground that the respondent is not a "kudikidappukaran" as defined in S.2(25) of the Act in so far as he is owner of a plot of 15 cents of land pursuant to Ext. P1 purchase.

(2.) The short question that falls for decision in this revision petition is whether the respondent petitioner has ceased to be a "kudikidappukaran" in view of the property owned by him under Ext. P1. Ext, P1 purchase is admittedly in the name of the respondent petitioner, his wife and two children. In so far as the purchase is not for any tarwad as such the share of each vendee is definite even though the enjoyment may continue to be common. On partition, therefore, the respondent can claim, only an one fourth share in the 15 cents. That being the position it has to be considered whether he ceases to be a kudikidappukaran as defined in S.2(25) of the Act.

(3.) S.2(25) of the Act may be read as follows: