IMBICHAMINABI Vs. IMBICHAYISSABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal by the defendants, the short question posed for consideration is whether the building is a hut and the appellants are kudikidappukars. The matter was referred to the Land Tribunal. Finding was against the appellants. Accepting that finding, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. The decision was confirmed by the District Judge in appeal.

(2.) The building was in the occupation of another tenant who was evicted through a rent control proceeding and the land and building was assigned to the plaintiff. Thereafter substantial changes were effected and the building was let out to the first defendant in 1970. The contention is that in spite of the alteration or modifications, the building is one constructed before 1590 and the cost of construction at that time alone could be taken into account ignoring all the amounts spent on the building subsequently by the owner.

(3.) At the time of letting to the defendants in 1970, the building had four rooms with tiled roof and an enclosed veranda covered by asbestos roof. Two rooms have wooden ceilings and all the rooms have concrete flooring. The compound is enclosed with a gate. The commissioner assessed the cost of constructional Rs. 5,09,95 and monthly rent on the date of construction at Rs. 50/-. There is no dispute between the parties that the building was there before 1890 and it was only repaired, remodelled and extended subsequently. Though the appellants claimed to have done these items of work, that contention was negatived and the finding is that the building in its present condition was let out to the defendants. Even though the word reconstruction was not used by the plaintiff, on the basis of the allegations and evidence, the District Judge found that the building was reconstructed with substantial investment by the plaintiff and it was the reconstructed building that was let out in 1970. These findings do not call for interference being factual ones by appreciation of evidence including admissions of the second defendant, involving no substantial question of law.