The main legal point established in the judgment is that the kudikidappukaran is entitled to purchase additional land only if it is necessary or useful for the convenient enjoyment of the kudikidappu.

1. The petitioner applied for purchase of his kudikidappu (O. A. 149/77) under S.80A and 80B of Act 1/64, claiming that the dwelling house in question was put up by him in 1964 at a cost of about Rs.250/- and that he was residing in it for well over 13 years. When examined before the Land Tribunal as PW1, however, his version was slightly different. The landlord had seven cents of land, and there was a but almost centrally located in it, which he bad let out to some other person, for being used as a tea shop. That person left it, and the but remained unoccupied for some time, and in disrepair. In 1964 the petitioner occupied it and effected some repairs. But in 1971 he was persuaded to shift to the southern corner of the seven cents, lying at a lower level than the rest of the property. Thereafter the extent in his occupation, including the site of the but newly erected by him, was only about 2 cents. The landlord had fenced up the rest of the property and was cultivating it himself.

2. The Authorised Officer's report was also more or less on the same lines. Of the seven cents, one cent had been taken up by a Panchayat road. The petitioner was occupying about 2 cents at the southern end, and the remaining four cents was separately enclosed by the landlord and was being cultivated by him. Local enquiries revealed that this was the position from 1971, though before that period, the petitioner and his family were living in a but which was then in existence within the area fenced up by the landlord.

3. The landlord had a different story; but we are now not concerned with its veracity or details. The Land Tribunal noticed that there was virtually do dispute as to who had constructed the dwelling house in the two cents: it was put up by the applicant, and he was therefore entitled to claim kudikidappu. Of course, the Tribunal bad some doubt whether a Kudikidappu claim could be accepted in respect of the but which was there in 1964. It said:

"It is therefore amply proved that the applicant took up residence in the hut. owned by the 1st respondent in the land some time about 1964. and continued to live there till 1971, when the but was shifted to another site within the 7 cents a doubt crops up in my mind whether it is legalistic ally correct to hold that he used to be a kudikidappukaran as on 1-1-1970 and continues as such even today. In the alternative also he has to be considered as a kudikidappukaran in the land, since 1971. In either case he is a kudikidappukaran eligible for the protection envisaged in the KLR Act. It is therefore immaterial whether he is a kudikidappukaran from 1964 onwards or 1971 onwards".

The tribunal was evidently attempting to follow the law laid down by this Court that a kudikidappu could be created even after 1-1-70, and to hold that the applicant before it could be treated as a kudikidappukaran at least in relation to the structure he had erected in 1971, in the two cents of land. The Tribunal was however of the view, apparently because of the language employed in S.80A(1) and the decision of this Court in Kuni Arippandi v. Ummar (1976 KLT 50), that the applicant (the petitioner herein) was entitled to purchase the entire 7 cents.

4. On appeal the Appellate Authority took note of the proviso to sub-a. (3) of S.80A, and held that the petitioner was entitled to purchase only the two cents and the structure therein, but not the remaining 4 cents in the separate possession and enjoyment of the landlord.

5. It is the correctness of the above view which is now under challenge, the petitioner contending that he is entitled to purchase the entire plot of land, on the basis of the law laid down in Kuni Arippandi (1976 KLT 50). It does not appear that the said decision was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, but it is a Division Bench decision which should ordinarily bind me also.

6. "Ordinarily", I venture to say, because there are said to be exceptions to the rule regarding the binding natur