LAWS(KER)-1979-3-16

MARIAM Vs. CHOOLAN

Decided On March 16, 1979
MARIAM Appellant
V/S
CHOOLAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land owners have approached this Court questioning the decision on an application initiated under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act) by the 1st respondent for purchase of his alleged kudikidappu. The 1st respondent in his application had stated that he has been residing in the premises from 1952 onwards as a kudikidappukaran. That application was opposed by the 1st petitioner herein, who was alone on the party array as the respondent. She contended that the house referred to in the petition had been entrusted to the father of the 1st respondent, one Neelakantan. After his death, the 1st respondent alone is not entitled to file the application without other legal heirs of deceased Neelakantan. Regarding the value of the building also there was some dispute. She had also contended that the paramba in which the building is situate had been gifted to his son, Manu, and after his death his wife was in possession of the property and she was a necessary party to the proceeding. Consequently that party was also impleaded, who now figures as the 2nd petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. The Revenue Inspector estimated the cost of the building at Rs. 702.50 and estimated the old age as 25 years. Accepting this report, the Land Tribunal declared the 1st respondent as a kudikidappukaran and 9 cents was allowed to be purchased by him adjoining the kudikidappu. The matter was taken up in appeal and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal.

(2.) What was mainly contended before me in this Civil Revision Petition was that there was no entrustment of the house to the 1st respondent and therefore the 1st respondent cannot claim to be a kudikidappukaran. It was contended that the lower tribunals erred in holding that the 1st respondent is a kudikidappukaran, as the entrustment was only to his father. It might be useful in this connection to say how the appellate authority has discussed this question. What that authority states is that: