1. The first appellant is a mother and the second appellant her son: and they claimed before the lower courts that they were kudikidappukars. The trial court upheld that contention, while the lower appellate court rejected it. The main question thus for consideration is whether the appellants are kudikidappukars. To be more precise, the question is whether the first appellant is a kudikidappukari.

2. The father of the first appellant had a kudikidappu right over the disputed property; and he put up a building thereon. He made a gift of the same to the first appellant, who is now found by the lower courts to be the widow of a Sanku. (I may point out at this stage that the first appellant had a case that she was divorced by Sanku before his death; but that has been concurrently found against by both the lower courts and I do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion.) The claim of the respondent, the landlord, is that on the death of Sanku the appellants became entitled to the properties left by him including a homestead, where the first appellant is entitled to reside. The respondent contends further that since the first appellant is thus entitled to a right i