ELIZABETH Vs. SARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 3 in number in O. S. 617 of 1978 are the appellants. The suit was for recovery of possession of property described in the plaint schedule after demolishing the building therein which has been described as item No. 2, on the strength of title of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, permission was given to the 1st defendant to construct a building in plaint item No. 1 on condition that she will surrender the building whenever demanded. The property in question is now required by the plaintiff bona fide for constructing a building for her son Asokan.

(2.) The defendants resisted the suit putting the plaintiff to prove her title and possession over the plaint schedule properties and also contending that it was Joseph, the husband of the 1st defendant, who obtained permission from Marshall, the husband of the plaintiff, to construct a building. It was also contended that it was after obtaining permission from Marshall, Joseph started residence in plaint item No. 2 and this permission was given 30 years back. The defendants were residing in the plaint item No. 2 along with Joseph, who died subsequently. The transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants, evidence tenancy and she is entitled to fixity of tenure and in any view, she is entitled to the Kudikidappu right under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. There were other contentions also.

(3.) Before the Trial Court, five issues were framed. The 2nd issue was ''whether the first defendant is a Kudikidappukaran in the property." The third issue was "whether the defendants are liable to be evicted." Issue No. 2 was referred to the Land Tribunal for a finding under S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, here-in-after called 'the Act'. The Land Tribunal entered a finding that the first defendant is not a Kudikidappukaran.