KOCHUNJU NAIR versus KOSHY ALEXANDER AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 24-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KOCHUNJU NAIR 
A 
v. 
KOSHY ALEXANDER AND ORS. 
MARCH 24, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1963 
S. 2 ( 25)-Person in possessicn of land held in co-ownership with 
others in excess of limits prescribed under S.2 (25)-Whether such person C 
would be entitled to claim the rights of 'Kudikidappu' under the provisions 
of the Act-Held : such a person would not be entitled to claim the rights 
of Kudikidappu. 
Words & Phrases- 'Kudikidappu ', 'Co-owner', 'Homestead', 
'Person', 'Family '-Meaning of in the context of Kera/a land Reforms D 
Act, 1963 . 
. The predecessor of the respondent was the owner of a building 
which he rented out to the appellant for conducting a tea-shop. In the 
family settlement of the predecessor of the respondent, the said building and E 
the land on which it was situated was allotted to the share of the first 
respondent. Two suits were filed in respect of the building, one by the 
appellant for a declaration that he is the owner of the building and the other 
by the first respondent together with his predecessor for recovery of 
possession of the building. The appellant claimed that he was a 
Kudikidappukaran and was entitled to the rights thereof under the provisions F 
of the Kerala·Land Reforms Act, 1963. 
The suit filed by the respondent was dismissed by the trial court after 
a finding by the Land Tribunal under Section 125 (3) of the Act that the 
appellant is a Kudikidappukaran pursuant to a reference made to it by the G 
trial court on the direction of the Kerala High Court. The respondents filed 
appeal against the order of the trial court before the first appellate court. 
The first appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the 
respondents for possession of the premises, on the premise that the appellant 
had in his possession land in excess of ten cents in the area i.e., in excess 
of the limit prescribed under Section 2 (25) of the Act. Aggrieved by the H 
169 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A judgement of the first appellate court, the appellant preferred Second Appeal 
before the Kerala High Court. The contention of the appellant before the 
High Court was that since the land was held by him in co-ownership with 
his wife and son it cannot be taken into consideration while deciding whether 
he has the right of Kudikidappukaran. The Division Bench which heard the 
B Second Appeal differed with an earlier decision of another Division Bench 
as it was of the view that such possession would dis-entitle him from claiming 
the benefits of Kudikidappukaran under the Act and placed the matter before 
a Full Bench. 
The Full Bench concurred with the view taken in the earlier decision 
C and held that when a person has land in co-ownership with another, whatever 
be its extent, it would not disentitle him to cllfim the rights of a 
"Kudikidappukaran" under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 
1963 as the person cannot be said to be in possession of land in excess of 
the limit prescribed in S. 2 (25) of the Act as co-ownership property cannot 
be taken into consideration. However, the Full Bench found that the land in 
D the appellant's possession was not in co-ownership with others and hence, 
repelled his right to have Kudikidappu rights. 
E 
F 
Against the Judgement of the Full Bench, the appellant has appealed 
to this court, contending that if the person has only co-ownership over the 
land it cannot be said that he is the owner thereof, nor can it be said that 
he is in possession of it; alternatively even if the co-ownership can be taken 
into account, the area of the appellant's land, after partition, would fall below 
10 cents in extent. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The person claiming to be a Kudikidappukaran should not 
have, in his possession, land exceeding ten cents in a panchayat area, either 
as owner or as tenant on which he could erect a dwelling house. The word 
"homestead" in the context would only mean a dwelling house. (173-H-G) 
G 
2. Ownership imports three essential rights, namely, right to 
possession, right to enjoy and right to dispose. If an owner is wrongly 
deprived of possession of his property he has a right to be put in possession 
thereof. All the three essentials are satisfied in the case of co-owner of a 
land. All co-owners have equal rights and co-ordinate interest in the property, 
though their shares may be either fixed or indeterminate. Every co-owne

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.