CHOZHI VASUDEVAN Vs. SREEMATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim in this second appeal by the defendants is that they are kudikidappukars, or in the alternative, they were ulkudi holders. Both these contentions have been rejected by the lower courts.

(2.) "Kudikidappukaran" is defined under S.2(25) of Act 1 of 1964; and the appellants might become kudikidappukars but for the fact that the lower courts have found that the appellants have joint right at least in a family house. If so, the appellants cannot be kudikidappukars. Mr. Balakrishna Eradi, the counsel of the appellants, seeks to argue that under S.2(25)(i) a person who owns and possesses other land alone is disqualified to be a kudikidappukaran. I do not agree. If a person either owns land or possesses land as a tenant, he is disqualified to claim rights as a kudikidappukaran. Since the lower courts have concurrently found that the appellants are joint owners of at least the family house, they are not kudikidappukars.

(3.) The next contention is that they were ulkudi holders. Ulkudi holders are not given any right under Act 1 of 1964. It is true that under the Malabar Tenancy Amendment Acts of the fifties ulkudi holders were given fixity of tenure. Now that there is no protection for them under Act I of 1964, even if the appellants were ulkudi holders under the Malabar Tenancy Act, they cannot claim such right now. It is suggested by the counsel of the appellants that the fixity of tenure given to all holders of lands under the Malabar Tenancy Act is now protected under the Land Reforms Act; and that therefore, it must be presumed that the ulkudi holders' right is also saved or retained by the Land Reforms Act. I do not think this contention is justified. Act I of 1964 repealed the Malabar Tenancy Act; and reenacted all the provisions, in several cases in a wider form, and probable in a few cases in a restricted form. In such a case, unless the appellants show that their right as ulkudi holders is protected under the new legislation, they cannot request the court to presume that such rights are also protected. Therefore, this contention must also fail.