(1.) In Muhammad v. Imbichibi, 1974 KLT 738 a Full Bench of this Court considered the question whether a person occupying a portion of a building belonging to another is a kudikidappukaran and held:
(2.) The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the person in occupation of a part of a building will be a kudikidappukaran if the two parts and the lands in which they stand now belong to two different persons, even if all the other conditions insisted by S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 are satisfied.
(3.) The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Land Tribunal, Cannanore under S.80B of the Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 for the purchase of the kudikidappu contending that the building in his occupation, belonging to the first respondent landowner is a hut as defined in S.2(25) of the Act. The Original Application was opposed by the first respondent who contended that the building in the occupation of the petitioner is only part of a building and hence there was no kudikidappu. The Special Revenue Inspector deputed by the Land Tribunal reported that the building in the occupation of the petitioner is only part of a building comprising of two dwelling houses. The two parts of the building and the land in which they stood belonged to two persons. There was sufficient material before the Land Tribunal to show that all the other requisites of a kudikidappu insisted by S.2(25) of the Act were satisfied. The Land Tribunal allowed the application for purchase holding that the building in which the petitioner resides 'has a separate entity and the land in which the building stands has also a separate entity' and 'it is maintained separately although the lie of the building will show that it is a part of a big building'.