RAMAN Vs. PATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. 1603 of 1987 arises from O.A. 135 of 1973, an application filed by the petitioner under S.80B K.L R. Act whereas C.R.P. 1642 of 1987 arises from O.A. 129 of 1979, an application filed by the landlord (first respondent in both the revisions) under S.75(2) for shifting the kudikidappu to the new site, described in B schedule attached to the application.

(2.) It is unnecessary to trace the previous history of the case because the only question that arises tar consideration is whether the landlord has established that he requires the whole of the land including the site of the kudikidappu or land appurtenant thereto or at least a part of the kudikidappu and the land appurtenant thereto for constructing a building for the residence of her son who, going by the evidence on record, at the time of the filing of the shifting application, was residing with his wife and children, with his parents.

(3.) The Land Tribunal after evaluating the evidence, the parties had produced ia the proceedings, observed that "the shifting application is not at all bona fide and that it has been filed to harass a poor kudikidappukaran", Regarding the question as to whether the alternate site suggested by the landlord is fit for erecting a homestead, the Tribunal entered the following findings:-