KOCHUKUNJU NAIR Vs. KOSHY SOSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant's claim of kudikidappu though allowed by the Land Tribunal in . reference under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was reversed by the District Judge, Pathanamthitta.

(2.) One of the questions raised before us is as to whether fractional interest of the appellant in other properties can disentitle him from claiming kudikidappu right in the schedule property. His contention is that the District Judge went wrong in rejecting the plea of kudikidappu of the appellant on the ground that he has interest in other properties evidenced by Exts. B-16 and B-17. Appellant's contention is that he has only coownership right over the properties covered by Exts. B-16 and B-17 and that being the position his claim of kudikidappu cannot be defeated.

(3.) In Ramakrishnan and Others v. Kumaran and Others ( 1980 KLN 19 ) a Division Bench of this Court held that the mere fact that the defendants have an undivided fractional interest in some property owned by them in common with others and over which they have absolutely no manner of actual possession or control will not disqualify them from claiming the status of kudikidappukars under S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In Vasistha Vadhyar v. Mohini Bai ( 1975 KLT 365 ) a Division Bench of this Court held that since a member of a joint family has no ownership or possession exclusively on any portion of the property belonging to the joint family the fact that the person owns land with others as joint tenant cannot disentitle him from the protection extended under S.2(25) of the Act. In Chakkara Ramakrishnan's case (1980 KLN 19) Vasistha Vadhyar's case, was approved.