SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(Ker) 46

Judges : M.MADHAVAN NAIR
PERILA JANARDHANAN - Appellant
Versus
VELLACHI CHINNA - Respondent
Case No : S. A. No. 184 of 1965
Decided On : 03/11/1969
Advocates Appeared :
S. Easwara Iyer; L. G. Poti; C. S. Rajan; For Appellant S. Neelakanta Iyer; For Respondent

Occupation for kudikidappukaran status must be in one's own right and not in virtue of a right of another.

Headnote:

Mortgage - Redemption - Occupation of Property - Kudikidappukaran

Fact of the Case:

The 3rd defendant claimed independent title and possession of the property before the mortgage, but the courts below negatived the claim. The Munsiff declared the 3rd defendant's occupation of the property as entitling him to the status of a kudikidappukaran, but the Subordinate Judge reversed it.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the 3rd defendant's occupation did not entitle him to the status of a kudikidappukaran as he was a member of the co-parcenary with the mortgagees, and his occupation must be identified with the possession of the mortgagees and not as a kudikidappukaran.

Issues: The main issue was whether the 3rd defendant's occupation of the property entitled him to the status of a kudikidappukaran, and the secondary issue was regarding the costs claimed by the plaintiff-respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'kudikidappukaran' as occupation in one's own right and not occupation in virtue of a right of another, and concluded that the 3rd defendant's occupation did not meet the criteria for kudikidappukaran status.

Final Decision: The appeal and the memorandum of cross-objections were dismissed.

Judgment :-

1. This second appeal is by the 3rd defendant in a suit for redemption. The mortgage is one executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 and 2 (father and son). The 3rd defendant is the son of a late elder brother of the 1st defendant. He has been impleaded as one in occupation of a but on the suit property, having been inducted therein by the mortgagees. By his written statement, the 3rd defendant claimed independent title as also possession of the entire property long before the mortgage. The claim has been negatived concurrently by the courts below and being a question of fact it is conclusive in this second appeal. The Munsiff however declared the 3rd defendant's occupation of the but on the property to entitle him to the status of a kudikidappukaran and consequent immunity from eviction out of the property. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has reversed it. Hence this second appeal.

2. The avernment in para 5 of the plaint is that, subsequent to the mortgage, the 3rd defendant has been put to reside in a but on the property by the mortgagees. The 3rd defendant disclaimed it in his written statement and claimed to have had independent possession of the property long before the mortgage. The Subordinate Judge has held that neither the plaint averments nor the plea in the written statement of the 3rd defendant is sufficient to concede the status of a kudikidappukaran to him. I am afraid that both the Munsiff and the Subordinate Judge failed to notice the material fact in the case that the 3rd defendant is a member of the co-parcenary with the mortgagees. The relation between defendants 1 to 3 is conceded and they are Hindus. There is no case that they are divided. Defendants 1 to 3 therefore belong to a Hindu co¬parcenary.

3. Kudikidappukaran, as defined in the Land Reforms Act and its accessory enactments, like the Act IX of 1967, must have occupation of a portion of any land or of a but in his own right. A person in occupation by virtue of a right vested in another, e.g. a wife, child, member of the family, or servant residing in a building or outhouse in virtue of a right in the husband, parent, manager of the family or master, cannot claim the status of a kudikidappukaran. A member of the mortgagee's family occupying a building on the mortgage property or a member of a tenant's family occupying a building on the leasehold, cannot be said to have such an occupation of the building as would entitle him to the status of a kudikidappukaran and to consequent fixity of occupation contemplated in the laws. In short, the expression "occupation" in the definition of "kudikidappukaran" means occupation in one's own right and not occupation in virtue of a right of another, or of a right common to him and the person who permitted his occupation. Duality of persons in the permittor and the permitted is an essential feature of a 'kudikidappu'. It will be a fraud on law for a mortgagee to put a near relative of his in occupation of a building on the mortgage-property to entitle the latter to fixity of occupation and consequent immunity from eviction on redemption of the mortgage; it is in effect the ouster of a needy person out of his property, which law always regarded as unconscionable. It is one thing to expose a camouflage and construe a disguised mortgage as a lease in reality, but a different thing to conclude fixity of occupation of the mortgaged property or a part thereof to a mortgagee's relation. Even when the deprivation is only of a part of the mortgaged property, its obvious effect is to compel the debtor to repay the entire debt to have back only a part of the mortgaged property, and to give the creditor's relations unearned and unwarranted benefits at the cost of the debtor who was constrained to mortgage his property to tide over a temporary difficulty. The occupation by a number of the family of the mortgagee of a building on a mortgage-property be it a but or a bungalow has to be construed as occupation



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top