MANNI Vs. MOIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claiming herself to be a kudikidappukaran applied under Section 80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 -- as amended by Act 35 of 1969 - (shortly stated the Act), for the purchase of the kudikidappu occupied by her. The claim was opposed on the ground that the petitioner is holding the property under a marupat, and as such she is a tenant and not a kudikidappukaran entitled to apply under Section 80-B. The Courts below upheld this plea of the respondentjenmi land have dismissed the petition.

(2.) THE C. R. P, has come up before us on reference by a Division Bench stating that the two Single Bench decisions on this point, Karthiayani Pilla v. Appipennu mathu, 1965 Ker LT 1212 and Chozhil Vasudevan v. Sreemathi Amma, 1966 Ker lt 594 are irreconcilable. In 1965 Ker LT 1212. Raman Nayar, J. , as he then was held that:

(3.) WE have considered the question from all relevant angles and we think that the decision in 1965 Ker LT 1212 reflects the correct position and has to be accepted in preference to the other. In the present case the petitioner was in enjoyment of the property (about 1 cent in extent) under an oral arrangement and while so she was asked to execute a pattom chit and on the 30th of July, 1946 she executed exhibit B-1 in favour of the jenmi; she had already out up a building and at the time of Exhibit B-l she was residing in the building. The relevant clause in Exhibit b-1 runs : (Original in Mallyalam omitted.) We have to see whether in spite of the fact that she is in occupation under a document of lease, she still possesses the requirements of kudikidappukaran contemplated in the act, "kudikidappukaran" means :