Sakunthala and Others vs Remani and Others

K.A. Abdul Gafoor

Legal representatives of the defendant in a suit for "recovery of possession of the plaint schedule house" are the appellants in this case. The plaintiff had admitted in para. 1 of the plaint itself that "the defendant whose father''s name is not known is residing in Kachanamkottu paramba". It is further averred that "pending proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the plaintiff recognised the defendant as Kudikidappukaran". Thus, it is an admitted case that the original defendant was a kudikidappukaran. Therefore, that right continues in respect of the appellants, legal representatives of the original defendant. It was alleged that there was an agreement on 16-6-1972 by the Kudikidappukaran. By that agreement, the kudikidappukaran agreed to shift to a new site of three cents according to the plaintiff. It was in the above circumstances, the plaintiff instituted the suit "for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule house". Thus, really the suit is for recovery of possession of kudikidappu. The courts below decreed the suit on the strength of the alleged agreement. The courts below did not advert to the impact of Sec.75 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act whereby certain rights are guaranteed to the Kudikidappukaran. It is provided in the said section that No kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted from his kudikidappu except under the circumstances provided for in the said section. The circumstances so provided in the said section are not present here. Recovery of possession of kudikidappu amounts to eviction of kudikidappukaran from the kudikidappu. When there is fixity of tenure so far as the kudikidappukaran is concerned, the possession of his kudikidappu cannot be recovered by the landlord. Thus, there arise substantial question of law in this appeal as to whether a suit for recovery of possession of kudikidappu by a landlord is maintainable on the basis of the statutory provision. The question is answered in favour of the kudikidappukaran. Therefore, the judgments of the courts below are set aside. This will not stand in the way of the landlord, if he has got any entitlement as per law to enforce the alleged agreement in accordance with law, if possible. The S.A. is allowed with costs.