SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 27

S.NATARAJAN, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
S. Appukuttan – Appellant
Versus
Thundiyil Janaki Amma – Respondent


Advocates:
Abdul Khader, K.M.NAYAR, N.SUDHAKARAN, S.Padmanabhan

Judgment

NATARAJAN, J.:- The appeals by special leave and the special leave petitions raise a common question of law regarding the scope and effect of Explanation II-A to Clause (25) of Section 2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, (for short the Act hereafter) as amended by Act 17 of 1972. It is, however, necessary to mention two matters even at the outset of judgment. Had the judgments in the two appeals been pronounced after the decision in Velayudhan v. Aishabi, AIR 1981 Ker 185 by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, the results would have been different and there would have been no necessity for these appeals being filed. Secondly, the decision in Velayudhan v. Aishabi has become final since no appeal has been preferred to this Court against the judgment therein.

2. What falls for consideration in all these cases is whether by reason of Explanation IIA to Section 2(25) of the Act, a person in occupation of a homestead or a hut belonging to another during the period stipulated in the Explanation would become a kudikidappukaran and be entitled to kudikidappu rights under the Act.

3. For a proper understanding of the issue, we may make a brief reference to the history of the Le









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top