JANARDHANAN Vs. AMMUKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that falls for decision in this revision under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, for short the Act, is whether, what was a kudikidappu, would cease to be one if and when the hut or the homestead which was in existence there was destroyed or demolished after 1-1-1970, and, whether, for that reason, the kudikidappukaran would be deprived of his right to purchase the kudikidappu under S.80A of the Act The Land Tribunal had allowed the application of the first respondent filed under S.80 B of the Act repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner that the application was not maintainable inasmuch as the hut forming part of the kudikidappu was not in existence as on the date of the application; and the Appellate Authority has confirmed the decision of the Land Tribunal.

(2.) It is the admitted case that the 1st respondent is the widow of one Kunhimon, to whom the revision petitioners had entrusted the hut which formed part of the kudikidappu and that they were in occupation of it till 3-6-1970. The Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority have disbelieved the version of the revision petitioners that the said Kunhimon had on 3-6-1970, as per Ext. D-1 receipt, surrendered the kudikidappu to them. It is not necessary here to investigate the case of the 1st respondent that the but was got demolished by the revision petitioners as a vindicative measure, with ulterior motives, when they bad temporarily left it on account of the illness of Kunhimon; the fact remains that the hut which formed part of the kudikidappu was admittedly in their occupation till 3-6-1970. It was as the legal heir of deceased Kunhimon that the 1st respondent filed the application for purchase of the kudikidappu under S.80B of the Act.

(3.) Mrs. Sumathi Dandapani, the counsel for the revision petitioners, submitted that "kudikidappu" as defined in clause (b) of S.2(25) of the Act means not only the land, but also the homestead or the but permitted to be erected or occupied, together with the easements attached thereto; and in this case the admitted case being that the but occupied by the 1st respondent bad ceased to exist at the time when the application under S.80B of the Act was made by her, the application could not have been treated as one for purchase of kudikidappu as defined in S.2(25) of the Act.