Back
1974 Supreme(Ker) 146
Judges : G.VISWANATHA IYER
ELIAMMA CHACKO - Appellant
Versus
PAUL - Respondent
Case No : C. R. P. No. 474 of 1973
Decided On : 09/19/1974
Advocates Appeared :
K. S. Rajamony; S. Parameswaran; For Petitioner A. C. Jose; For Respondent
Headnote:
Kudikidappu - Purchase of Kudikidappu - Court analyzes the conditions for claiming the benefit of Kudikidappu and concludes that the petitioner does not satisfy the requirements to be considered a Kudikidappukaran entitled to apply for purchase.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to purchase a Kudikidappu but was found not to be a Kudikidappukaran based on the land ownership criteria and the timing of the purchase provision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions to be considered a Kudikidappukaran entitled to apply for purchase, as he did not meet the land ownership criteria on the specified date and had already sold the property in question.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner satisfied the definition of a Kudikidappukaran on the date the section permitting the purchase came into force.
Ratio Decidendi: The right of purchase is given only to a person who satisfied the definition of a Kudikidappukaran on the date the section permitting the purchase came into force, and the petitioner was not a Kudikidappukaran on that day.
Final Decision: The court held that the petitioner is not a Kudikidappukaran entitled to apply for purchase and dismissed the revision petition.
1. This revision petition is filed by the applicant for purchase of a Kudikidappu. The two lower Tribunals found that the petitioner is not a Kudikidappukaran and that is challenged in this revision.
2. The first condition that the petitioner has to satisfy in order that he may claim the benefit of Kudikidappu is that he was a Kudikidappukaran on 1-1-1970 when the substituted clause (25) to S.2 of Act I of 1964 came into force. That clause provides that he should not have any land exceeding 5 cents in a Municipality in which he can erect a homestead. On that day (111970) he had 14 cents of land and a residential building in the flame of himself and his wife. Ext. D2 dated 1011966 evidences that. He and his wife sold that property only by Ext. D1 dated 1911970 to a stranger. So he did not satisfy the requirement of clause (25) to be a Kudikidappukaran on 1-1-1970.
3. Mr. Parameswaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner satisfied the definition of a Kudikidappukaran on the day the unamended Act 1 of. 1964 came into force and also on the date he applied to purchase and that that is enough to entitle the petitioner to apply. This contention cannot stand because the right of purchase is given only to a person who satisfied the definition of a Kudikidappukaran on the date the section permitting the purchase came into force. That section came into force only on 1-1-1970 and the petitioner was not a Kudikidappukaran on that day. This being so, the petitioner having parted with his right in Ext. D2 property after 1170 cannot claim to apply to purchase.
4. In this view, the lower Tribunals are right in holding that the petitioner is not a Kudikidappukaran entitled to apply for purchase. The C. R. P. fails. It is dismissed.
No costs.
Dismissed.
