A L VASUDEVA SHENOY Vs. KOCHAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for shifting of a kudikidappu and for arrears of rent. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court, finding that the appellant's claim for shifting was bona fide and based on valid grounds. On appeal by the kudikidappukars (the defendants) the lower appellate court reversed the decree of the Trial Court solely on the ground that at the time of requiring the kudikidappukars to shift, in terms of S.75(2) of the Land Reforms Act. (the Act) and also at the time of sending the registered notice to them in terms of the proviso to S.77(1), the landholder (appellant) was not the owner of the new site to which the kudikidappukars were required to shift. Subject to this, however, the learned Judge affirmed the finding of the Trial Court as regards the bona fide need of the landholder and his compliance with the various conditions laid down by the statute, In other words both the courts have concurrently found that the appellant bona fide requires the site on which there is a kudikidappukaran for an industrial purpose and that all but one of the various provisions of S.75 are fully satisfied.

(2.) That the appellant did not own the new site to which the kudikidappukars were asked to shift was not stated in the written statement or urged before the Trial Court. Apparently therefore no such issue was framed. The contention was taken up for the first time in the lower appellate court. It is however not disputed before me that the appellant purchased the new site only subsequent to the notice contemplated under the proviso to S.77(1) was issued; but long before the institution of the suit.

(3.) Ext. D-1 notice is dated 10-8-1965. It was sent to the respondents (kudikidappukars) by registered post. Admittedly it was received by them on 12-8-1965. On 17-9-1965 the new site was acquired by the appellant, that being the date of registration of the deed of sale. A few days thereafter. i.e., on 22-9-1965 a reply notice was sent on behalf of the respondents to the appellant by registered post in answer to Ext. D-1. Nothing happened thereafter for about a year until the suit was filed on 7-8-1968.