IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 595 of 2005 AA.113/2000 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), ALAPPUZHA OA.NO.62 OF 1993 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT: APPLICANT: ------------------ RAJAMMA, BHAGAVATHY BHAVAN, THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, OLD THEVARA ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, COCHIN-16. BY ADV. SMT.A.R.USHA RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: ------------- THE MANAGER, THEOSOPHICAL SOCEITY, OLD THEVARA ROAD, COCHIN-16. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.1578/2005 IN C.R.P.NO.595/2005 DISMISSED 1/1/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 595 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st January, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner filed O.A.No.62 of 1993, on the file of the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam, under Section 80 B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, claiming kudikidappu rights. The Land Tribunal by a well considered order dismissed the application holding that the petitioner is not entitled to claim kudikidappu rights. The order of the Land Tribunal was confirmed in A.A.No.113 of 2000, on the file of the Appellate Authority (L.R), Alappuzha. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is that she was permitted to occupy four rooms in a two storeyed building by one Ambady Ekkamma on 1.12.1969. The building admittedly belongs to Theosophical Society, the respondent herein. It is well settled that a person in occupation of part of a building is not entitled to claim kudikidappu rights. Before the Land Tribunal, the case was posted on 10.4.1995, 18.5.1995 and 26.6.1995, but no evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner. Again the case was posted to 16.10.1995 and 23.11.1995. On those dates also no document or evidence was produced by the petitioner. The Land Tribunal appointed an Authorised Officer to inspect the property and to file a report. The Revenue Inspector who inspected the site reported that the C.R.P. NO.595 OF 2005 :: 2 :: petitioner was not present in the building and her husband alone was present. It is also reported by the Revenue Inspector that the kudikidappu claimed by the petitioner is in the middle portion of a double storeyed building and that the rooms in respect of which kudikidappu right is claimed is seen to be the storage place of waste paper, tin, etc. 3. Even after the Revenue Inspector filed the report, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner. No document was also produced by the petitioner to show that she has any right in respect of the building. The Land Tribunal took note of the fact that a Receiver was appointed for the management of the building in 1974 and that a suit for recovery of possession was pending against a lady who was allegedly in occupation of the building, as O.S.No.315 of 1988. That decree was to be in execution and she was evicted. The case of the respondent is that after the execution of the decree in O.S.No.315 of 1988, the petitioner illegally trespassed into one of the rooms in the building and that her claim is illegal and unsustainable. 4. As rightly held by the Land Tribunal, the claim put forward by the petitioner is not established by any documentary or oral evidence. The petitioner has not proved that she has any kudikidappu right in respect of the building. Even if the case put forward by the petitioner is C.R.P. NO.595 OF 2005 :: 3 :: accepted as true, that would not entitle her to claim kudikidappu rights as the claim by the petitioner is only in respect of a portion of a larger building. 5. Section 2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act defines “kudikidappukaran”. Section 2(25) reads as follows: “(25) “kudikidappukaran” means a person who has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent three cents in any city or major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten cents in any panchayat area or township, in possession either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead and -- (a) who has been permitted with or without an obligation to pay rent by a person in lawful possession of any land to have the use and occupation of a portion of such land for the purpose of erecting a homestead; or (b) who has been permitted by a person in lawful possession of any land to occupy, with or without an obligation to pay rent, a hut belonging to such person and situate in the said land; and “kudikidappu” means the land and the homestead or the hut so permitted to be erected or occupied together with the easements attached thereto:” 6. Explanation II defines “hut” and “homestead”. In Krishnamma v. Nagheswari Amma (1984 KLT 810) and William George Haggins v. Ayisha (1985 KLT 703), it was held that a person in occupation of a part of a building is not entitled to claim kudikidappu right. A Full Bench of this Court in Muhammad v. Imbichibi (1974 KLT 738) took the view that “hut” C.R.P. NO.595 OF 2005 :: 4 :: as defined in the Act means a dwelling house complete in itself and not a place which is merely a part of larger structure which can be used for residential purposes. In view of the decisions referred to above and on the facts as disclosed in the Authorised Officer's report, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/