LALITHA Vs. BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise from out of applications made for the purchase of kudikidappu under S. 80a read with S. 80b of the land Reforms Act. C. R. P. No. 2925 of 1976-E arises out of O. A. No. 1597 of 1971, carried up in appeal to the appellate authority in A. A No 1248 of 973; and C R. P. No. 2928 of 1976-E arises out of O. A. No. 1604 of 1971 and A a. no. 1228 of 1973. The kudikidappu covered by these and other proceedings occupies an extent of half a cent; together with the surrounding area needed for convenient enjoyment, the total extent of the kudikidappu claimed, was three cents (vide sub-sections (3) and (6) of S. 80a ). The property on which the kudikidappu was situate, belonged originally to one Kunhiraman who died on 18-1-1964. On his death, his rights devolved on his widow and four children. It is not disputed that they took the properties as tenants in common There was a partition among them on 9121969. The widow died in 1970 and her rights devolved on her children. There were as many as sixteen kudikidappukars in the property. Ten of them applied for purchase of kudikidappu rights. The Land Tribunal allowed all these applications. Against these orders ten appeals were filed before the appellate authority and were disposed of by a common order. Against two of them these revision petitions have been filed. Seven of the ten appeals were allowed by the Appellate Authority and the matter was remanded back to the land Tribunal, on the finding that there was the defect of non joinder of parties and that all the co-owners interested in the extent of the kudikidappu sought to be purchased had not been joined as parties. The remaining three appeals were dismissed and these two revisions have been directed against two of such orders of dismissal.

(2.) COUNSEL for the revision petitioners raised three points First, that co-owners like the petitioners in these revision petitions would not fall within the definition of the term 'person' in S. 2 (43) of the land Reforms Act. Second, that a partition is not a 'transfer' within the meaning of S. 80a, clause (12) of the Act; and third, assuming that partition is a transfer, and irrespective of whether it was a transfer or not, the application in the present case was not proper, and suffered from the defect of non joinder like the other applications which were remanded back by the appellate authority.

(3.) COUNSEL for the revision petitioners stressed that an'association of persons' must be one linked by some unity of venture as expounded in some of the judicial decisions; and that therefore the same requirement must also be implied into the notion of body of individuals on the principle of ejusdem generis. We see no scope for importing the rule of ejusdem generis in the context. The different expressions used in S. 2 (43) referred to entities so distinct and dissimilar that there is no specification or indication of a genus in respect of which the enumerated ones can be regarded as mere species. We therefore hold that co-owners are within the purview of the definition of S. 2 (43) of the Act.