PUTHALATH PERUNTHODI LAKSHMI Vs. KALLUPARAMBATH KOCHUNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is preferred under Sec.113 of the Mahe Land Reforms Act, read with Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 22.8.1986 passed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Mahe, in A.A.No.2 of 1985 affirming the preliminary order dated 7.1.1985 passed in original application 1 /82-K by the Land Tribunal, Mahe.

(2.) THE Land Tribunal, Mahe by the aforesaid order has held that the petition scheduled house satisfied the requirement of sub-clause (ii) of Sec.2(24) of the Mahe Land Reforms Act, 1968 as substituted by the Mahe Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1980, that at the time of construction of the house, it had fetched a rent of Rs.6 only, therefore, it was a hut as defined in the aforesaid clause (24) of Sec.2. Accordingly, it has allowed the petition and held that the 1st respondent who is the petitioner in the original application is a " Kudikidappukaran" and he is eligible to purchase the Kudikidappu.

(3.) IT is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the petitioner in the original application was not eligible to claim the right to purchase Kudikidappu under Sec.88-B of the Mahe Land Reforms Act, 1968 as inserted by Mahe Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); that he was not the Kudikidappukaran, that the house in question was not a hut as defined in Sec.2(24), Explanation I of the Act: that the house was mortgaged to him and the mortgage had not been redeemed on the date the application was filed, that even if it is presumed that the house was leased earlier to the mortgagee though in fact, it was not leased, he ceased to be the lessee on the execution of the mortgage, as such he was not entitled to maintain the petition under Sec.88-B of the Act to claim relief for purchasing the land, that the petition was filed on 28.1.1982 and much later, the suit for redemption of the mortgage was decreed, as such the Appellate Authority was not justified in proceeding under the presumption that the mortgage must have been redeemed much earlier, that the application filed by the revision petitioner for producing a registered deed of mortgage executed between the parties relating to the property in question was not considered, that the petitioner in the original petition admitted in the cross-examination that he was a daily wage earner in a company and he was paid daily Rs.9.35 and as such, his annual income exceeded Rs.2,000 therefore, he was not eligible to claim the right as Kudikidappukaran, that the cost of construction of the house exceeded Rs.750 and as such having regard to the cost of construction, the house would have fetched a monthly rent of more than Rs.750.