1. Admittedly the 1st defendant constructed the dwelling house in the suit property with the permission of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, and is residing there with his wife, the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff-respondent sued for evicting them therefrom and the trial court decreed the suit. The lower appellate court confirmed that decree. Their claim for kudikidappu rights was repelled by the lower courts on the ground that the Ist defendant and his three brothers own a property in common, and that deducting 8 cents occupied by a kudikidappu that is on that property, the four brothers have 45 cents of land as co-ownership property, so that each of the four brothers is entitled to more than 10 cents of land. It was held that the Ist defendant is, therefore, not a kudikidappukaran as defined in S.2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The correctness of this is canvassed before me on behalf of defendants 1 and 2.

2. S.2 (25) aforesaid, so far as it is material for this case, reads:

"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 municip