ELIAMMA CHACKO Vs. PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the applicant for purchase of a Kudikidappu. The two lower Tribunals found that the petitioner is not a Kudikidappukaran and that is challenged in this revision.

(2.) The first condition that the petitioner has to satisfy in order that he may claim the benefit of Kudikidappu is that he was a Kudikidappukaran on 1-1-1970 when the substituted clause (25) to S.2 of Act I of 1964 came into force. That clause provides that he should not have any land exceeding 5 cents in a Municipality in which he can erect a homestead. On that day (1-1-1970) he had 14 cents of land and a residential building in the flame of himself and his wife. Ext. D2 dated 10-1-1966 evidences that. He and his wife sold that property only by Ext. D1 dated 19-1-1970 to a stranger. So he did not satisfy the requirement of clause (25) to be a Kudikidappukaran on 1-1-1970.

(3.) Mr. Parameswaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner satisfied the definition of a Kudikidappukaran on the day the unamended Act 1 of 1964 came into force and also on the date he applied to purchase and that that is enough to entitle the petitioner to apply. This contention cannot stand because the right of purchase is given only to a person who satisfied the definition of a Kudikidappukaran on the date the section permitting the purchase came into force. That section came into force only on 1-1-1970 and the petitioner was not a Kudikidappukaran on that day. This being so, the petitioner having parted with his right in Ext. D2 property after 1-1-70 cannot claim to apply to purchase.