SUBRAMANIAN Vs. KOCHU KHADEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal by the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 348/1957, Munsiff's Court, Parur raises the question whether the appellant can be regarded as a 'Kudikidappukaran' in respect of the property in question. He had taken over on a cooly charth evidenced by Ext. P1 dated 9-3-1950, a building or a hut for an annual rent of Rs. 40/-, Rs. 16/- being for purpose of thatching the hut. The perimeter of the building was 20 koles and 8 virals. It is now common ground that the building which was the subject matter of Ext. P1 transaction had ceased to exist on the date of the suit and that in its place a different building with an increased perimeter of 42 1/2 koles had been constructed by the appellant. The appellant's case was that the reconstruction was occasioned as a result of the destruction and damage caused to the original structure by the ravages of floods; whereas, the plaintiff 1st Respondent would have it, that the reconstruction was a deliberate and a wanton act of trespass on the part of the appellant. On this basis, the suit was laid, originally for the recovery of the building with arrears of rent, and for an injunction against reconstruction, but was later amended to include a prayer for recovery of possession of the site after removal of the reconstructed building. The appellant pleaded that he was a 'Kudikidappukaran' and that the suit was not maintainable. Both the courts below have concurred in finding that the reconstructed building was not put up with the consent of the knowledge of the plaintiff or her predecessor (who had granted Ext. P1 cooly charth). On the appellant's plea that he is a 'kudikidappukaran' the Trial Court found that the said right had been forfeited by the wanton destruction of the building by the appellant. It dealt with the matter in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act IV of 1961. The lower appellate court found that S.40(2) of the said Act only permitted a 'kudikidappukaran' to rebuild a homestead erected by him, and, as in this case the homestead belonged to the plaintiff, the appellant had no right to rebuild the same. It further found that S.40(2) of the Act permitted reconstruction without increasing the plinth area of the building, and as the same had been increased, the appellant was not entitled to claim the rights of a 'kudikidappukaran'. The plaintiff was granted a decree for recovery of possession of the site on which the reconstructed building stood, the appellant being given the option of removing the said building within three months, in default of which the plaintiff was allowed to remove the same and recover a sum of Rs. 25/- as expense for its removal.

(2.) The only plea in this Second Appeal is that the appellant is a 'kudikidappukaran' as defined by Act I of 1964 and that the decree passed against him cannot be sustained. S.2(25) of Act I/1964 defines 'kudikidappukaran' as follows:

(3.) The Travancore Cochin Prevention of Eviction of Kudikidappukars Act 1958, defines kudikidappukaran as follows.