GOPALAN Vs. CHELLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this second appeal is of the construction of the definition of a kudikidappukaran in clause (25) of S.2 of Act I of 1964.

(2.) The facts are thus: The title deed to the plaint B schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff. There is a building on the property which is described in plaint A schedule. The 1st defendant is a cousin of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is the son and the 3rd defendant daughter inlaw of the 1st defendant. Alleging that the building has been let by him to the 1st defendant, on a monthly rental of Rs. 4/-, the plaintiff instituted proceedings before the Rent Control Court for eviction of the defendants. The defendants denied lease and claimed title to the land and the building. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 1408 of 1955 for declaration of his title to the land and building and for recovery of arrears of rent. The 1st defendant claimed the purchase in the name of the plaintiff to have been with her funds for her benefit and the building to have been put up by her. The purchase was found to enure to the plaintiff, the building to have been put up by the 1st defendant, and the lease arrangement set up by the plaintiff untrue. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit to compel the defendants to remove the building from his land, averring that it was put up without his consent. Defendants 1 and 2 claimed immunity of a kudikidappukaran under the Kerala Act XXX of 1958. The Munsiff held:

(3.) The definition of a kudikidappukaran in the Act XXX of 1958 ran thus: