Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50093
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
BALAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P.(C) NO. 3638 OF 2024|RP NO. 965 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAJIT, SMT.AGNA PREM
For the Respondents: SRI.K.ANAND, SRI.M.H.HANILKUMAR-SPL.GP
Legal heirs of a deceased kudikidappukaran are entitled to a purchase certificate for kudikidappu rights following affirmations of their predecessor's status.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Reforms Act - Sections 80B and 80C - Writ petition concerning kudikidappu rights - Legal heirs of deceased kunjan filed for purchase certificate after prior orders confirming kunjan's status as kudikidappukaran. The court found that the declaration of kudikidappukaran status was binding and upheld the heirs' rights. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Review petition - Legal heirs of the previous respondent were necessary parties, and their absence necessitated the review and subsequent orders. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The legal heirs of late Ammu petitioned for a purchase certificate for kudikidappu rights after prior legal confirmations. Their application was initially allowed, but a review was sought by the landlord's legal heirs citing lack of inclusion in the original petition.
Findings of Court:
The status of kudikidappukaran for Kunjan was irrevocable, binding the legal heirs of the landlord without contesting previous decisions on this point.
Issues: Whether the absence of the landlord's heirs in initial proceedings affected the ruling on kudikidappu rights?
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate authority's affirmance of kudikidappukaran status is binding, allowing legal heirs to inherit the right. The lack of a challenge to previous decisions permits the issuance of the purchase certificate.
Result: Writ petition disposed as per directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. kudikidappu rights and applications (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. review petition essentials and parties (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. finality of findings on kudikidappu (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. heritability of kudikidappu rights (Para 7) |
| 5. disposal of writ petition (Para 8) |
ORDER
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in R.P.No.965 of 2025) are the legal heirs of one Kunjan and Ammu. Their mother Ammu filed an application for purchase of Kudikidappu right in respect of the holding in Survey No.40/4 in Anjur Village as O.A.No.44 of 1986 before the Land Tribunal, Chavakkad (for short, 'the Land Tribunal') under Section 80B of the KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT (for short, 'the Act'). The landlord is the respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 (Respondent No.5 in R.P.No.965 of 2025). The landlord opposed the application stating that in fact the father of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024, namely Sri.Kunjan was in possession of the property. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the father of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024, namely Kunjan died. The Land Tribunal allowed O.A.No.44 of 1986 as per Ext.P1 order holding that Sri.Kunjan, the late husband of Ammu, was a kudikidappukaran and the building in question was a hut. It was held that the certificate of purchase will be issued in favour of Ammu only if Kunjan gives consent. Even though the said order was challenged by Ammu and respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 before the appellate authority by filing separate appeals, the order of the Land Tribunal was confirmed. The order of the appellate authority was again challenged by Ammu and respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 before this Court in CRP Nos. 2263, 2277, 2626 and 2641 of 1999 . Those revision petitions were dismissed holding that the building in question is a hut and Kunjan was a kudikidappukaran. Thereafter, Ammu died. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 being the only legal heirs of late Ammu and late Kunjan, filed an application invoking Section 80C of the Act for issuance of purchase certificate. Since the respondent No.2 in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 did not take any action on the said application, the petitioners have approached this Court.
2. This Court, as per judgment dated 07.08.2024 allowed W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024, directing the respondent No.2 to issue purchase certificate to the writ petitioners in accordance with law. The said judgment was passed dispensing the notice to respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024.
3. Thereafter, the legal heirs of respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 filed a review petition before this Court as R.P.No.965 of 2025 to review the judgment of this Court dated 07.08.2024 mainly on the ground that even before filing W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024, respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 expired. Since the legal heirs of respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 were not impleaded and the judgment therein was passed without hearing them, I am of the view that the review is only to be allowed and accordingly, R.P.No.965 of 2025 stands allowed.
4. Since the review petitioners who are the legal heirs of respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 are necessary parties in the W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024, they are suo motu impleaded as additional respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
5. I have heard W.P.(C) No.3638 of 2024 afresh.
6. The application for kudikidappu was filed by late Ammu. The Land Tribunal, though dismissed the application filed by late Ammu, declared that late Kunjan was the kudikidappukaran. The appellate authority confirmed the finding of the Land Tribunal that late Kunjan was the kudikidappukaran. It was also found that the building in question was a hut. Ultimately, this Court in revision confirmed the finding of the appellate authority that late Kunjan was a kudikidappukaran and the building in question was a hut. Thus, the status of Kunjan as a kudikidappukaran in respect of the property in question was declared and the said declarati
