ORDER

Dated this the 05th day of April 2022 Revision Petitioners and respondents 2 to 7 are the respondents in E.P.No.253 of 2009 in O.S.No.171 of 1986 on the files of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod. The essential facts leading up to the filing of the revision petition are as under;

The first respondent, a Wakf, had filed the suit (O.S.No.171 of 1986) before the Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod, alleging that land belonging to the Wakf admeasuring 3 cents, comprised in Re-Sy. No.51 of 2019 had been taken on lease by Mammunhi S/o.Moosa, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, on ground rent of Rs.3.50 per month. After that, Mammunhi constructed a house on the property and executed a lease deed on 26.07.1966. After Mammunhi’s death, the defendants continued to occupy the home. Since the defendants defaulted on payment of rent from 26.03.1983 onwards, a lawyer notice was issued, calling upon the defendants to vacate the property. In their reply, the defendants claimed to have perfected kudikidappu right over the subject building.

Thereupon, the suit was filed seeking a decree to ascertain the value of the building existing in the property and surrender of possession of the property with future mesne profits. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that in recognition of Mammunhi's kudikidappu right, a purchase certificate had been issued to them from the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod. The Munsiff's Court dismissed the suit accepting the defendants' case. Thereupon, the first respondent filed A.S.No.79 of 1989 before the Sub court, Kasaragod. The appeal was allowed, finding that the purchase certificate was not binding on the first respondent, as the certificate was obtained without notice to the Wakf. Aggrieved, the defendants filed RSA No.528 of 1990 before this Court. The Second Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the lower appellate court and leaving open the defendants' right to agitate their claim of kudikidappu in the execution proceedings and future, directing the executing court to fix the value of the building to be deposited by the decree-holder. Following the direction, the claim of tenancy was referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 125 (3) of the Land Reforms Act ('the Act' for short). The Land Tribunal found the evidence adduced to be insufficient and answered the reference by holding that the defendants in the suit have no kudikidappu right over the 0.03 acres of land with the building thereon, in R.S.No.51/19 of Kasaba Village in Kasaragod District. The market value of the building assessed by the Advocate Commissioner at Rs.51285 was enhanced to Rs.197250/-. The execution petition was allowed, directing the defendants to surrender vacant possession of the building by receiving the compensation amount of Rs.1,97,250/-.

2. I Heard Senior Advocate V.V.Asokan for the revision petitioners and Advocate P.B.Krishnan for the respondents.

3. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the land Tribunal had committed gross illegality and impropriety in finding the claim of tenancy against the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners had given satisfactory evidence concerning their claim. The Tribunal committed a mistake by denying the claim on the premise that the net value of the house at the time of construction was Rs.913.90. Reference is made to the definition of 'kudikidappukaran' under Section 2(25) of the Land Reforms Act and the distinction between sub clause (a) and (b) of Section 2(25), to contend that the -requirement that the cost should not exceed 750 rupees at the time of construction is applicable only to a 'hut' and not a 'homestead'. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision in Nellikandi Valiya Pocker v Pothachola Bava 2007 (1) KHC 954. Relying on the decision in Ponnammal v Gomez 1991 (1) KLT 901, it is contended that for deciding the question of Kudikidappu I independently on available evidence, the provisions of Section 125(3)do not restrict the po