L. V ASANTHA KUMARI versus BALAMMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 30-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

L. V ASANTHA KUMAR! 
v. 
BALAMMAL AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 30, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1964: 
Section 2(25) Explanation H-A~'Kudikidappukaran'-Meaning of-
Any one satisfying the requirements of Explanation II-A and its proviso 
A 
B 
would be deemed 'Kudikidappukaran '. 
C 
Words and Phrases: 
'Kudikidappukaran '-Meaning of-In the context of Kera/a Land 
Reforms Act, I 964. 
By a sale deed S sold certain property to V. By an agreement D 
respondent agreed to purchase the said property from V. Based on . 
that, he filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed and 
u'ttimately confirmed by the High Court. Thereafter the respondents 
filed a suit for possession on the ground that the appellant trespassed 
into the land and the hut and therefore, she was liable to be ejected. 
The suit was decreed. On appeal it was reversed. The High Court in E 
second appeal confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. Hence 
this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The appellant is 11 deemed Kudikidappukaran within F 
the meaning of Explanation II-A to section 2(25) of the Kerala Land 
Reforms Act, 1964. As such the appellant is not liable to be ejected by 
the decree. Thereby the suit is not sustainable and the decree granted 
by the trial court and affirmed by tile High Court is clearly illegal. 
. 
[216 H, 219 C] 
2. As to operation of Explanation II-A what is relevant to be 
considered 
is 
that 
the 
perwn 
claiming 
to 
be 
deemed 
Kudikidappukaran, he/she shall be in occupation of the land and the 
dwelling house as on August 16, 1%8, whether constructed by himself 
or by herself or by any of his predecessors-in-interest or it may belong 
G 
to any other person. Another condition to be fulfilled is that the person H 
215 
·216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
continued to remain in possession till January 1, 1970. On satisfying 
these requirements the person in possession shall be deemed to be 
Kudikidappukaran. In the plaint it was admitted that the appellant 
trespassed in the building on November 4, 1955 and took residence 
therein. In view of that admission since she came into the occupation of 
the building as on November 5, 1955 much before the ·specified date 
B 
and remained to be in possession even till date, the necessary 
conclusion would be that she became the deemed Kudikidappukaran. 
[218 E to G) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
S. Appukuttan v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma and Anr., [1988) 2 SCC 372, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 1911' of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.83 of the Kerala High Court 
in S.A. No. 686 of 1978-C. 
, 
. 
G. Viswanatha Iyer, N. Sudhakaran, for the Appellant. 
P.S. Poti, S. Balakrishnan, for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by: 
This appeal raises question of law of general importance. Though the 
respondents were successful all through, they are now losing the battle in 
this Court. The property initially belonged to one Subramonian Pillai. By 
the sale-deed dated October 5, 1955, Subramonian Pillai sold the property 
in question to one Vaikuntam Pillai. By agreement dated October 15, 1956, 
the respondent agreed to purchase the property from Vaikuntam Pillai. 
Based on that agreement, he filed a suit for specific performance which was 
decreed and ultimately confirmed by the High Court on November 18, , 
1963. Thereafter, the respondents filed O.S. No. 76/67 on the file ofMunsif 
Court, Trivandrum for possession on the ground that the appellant 
trespassed into the land and the hut on November 4, 1955, and that, 
therefore, she is liable to be ejected. The suit was decreed by the trial court. 
pn appeal, it was reversed and in Second Appeal No. 686/78, by judgment · 
dated' November 28, 1983, the High Court reversed the decree of the 
appellate court and conf!p11ed that of the trial court. Thus this appeal. 
. 
. 
The question js whether the ;ippellaµt is deemed a Kudikidappukaran 
H , within the meaning of Explanation II-A of ·section 2(25) of the Act 1 of 
L. V. KUMAR! v. BALAMMAL 
217 
1964 as amended by A1;t 35 of 1969. Section 2(25) defines A 
Kudikidappukaran as :-
"(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, B 
in possession ei1her as owner or as tenan

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