ANTONY Vs. PATHROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions arise respectively out of O. A. Nos. 443/71, 363/71, 364/71 and 361/71. The original applications were laid by four different kudikidappukars for purchase of kudikidappu under S.80B of Art 1 of 1964 against the common land owner. There were two other similar applications also. The contention of the landowner in all the cases was that he is in possession of only 4 acres and 55 cents of land, and consequently, the total number of kudikidappukars in his property, namely ten, were together entitled to get only 50 cents of land. The Land Tribunal ordered the six purchase applications substantially accepting the contention of the landowner. Four of the applicants went in appeal, while two applicants acquiesced in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appellate authority, however, took the view that each of the kudikidappukars is entitled to purchase ten cents, and the appeals were accordingly allowed. These revisions are directed against that order.

(2.) The only question that arises for consideration is whether each of the respondents in these revisions is entitled to only 5 cents of land as contended by the revision petitioners or to ten cents of land as held by the appellate authority. There is no dispute that the revision petitioners themselves hold only 4 acres and 55 cents. The reasoning adopted by the appellate authority is that the wife of the original respondent landowner has 1 acre and 19 cents of land in her possession, and when that also is added to the property owned by the original owner then the total area exceeds five acres. The contention of the revision petitioners, who are the heirs of the original respondent landowner is that their mother got only a life estate under Ext. D4 regarding that 1 acre and 19 cents. On going through the document I am satisfied that there has been an absolute transfer of the property by the executant in favour of her children even in 1961 subject to a right to take the usufructs from certain items during the life time of the settlor. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt regarding the exact nature of the right which the wife of the original respondent possessed in relation to the disputed 1 acre and 19 cents. What has to be considered is whether the life interest so held is property held for the purpose of S.80A(12)(b) of the Act 1 of 1964. Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s.(12) of S.80 S.80A may be read:-