http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: L.VASANT KUMARI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BALAMMAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (1) 635        JT 1995 (2)    83  1994 SCALE  (5)323

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.This appeal raises question of law of general  importance. Though the respondents were successful all through, they are now losing the battle in this Court.  The property initially belonged to one Subramonian Pillai.  By the sale deed  dated 5-10-1955, Subramonian Pillai sold the property in  question to one Vaikuntam Pillai.  By agreement dated 15-10-1956, the respondent  agreed to purchase the property  from  Vaikuntam Pillai.   Based  on  that agreement, he  filed  a  suit  for specific  performance  which  was  decreed  and   ultimately confirmed by the High Court on 18-11-1963.  Thereafter,  the respondents filed OS No. 76 of 1967 on the file of  Munsif’s Court,  Trivandrum  for possession on the  ground  that  the appellant trespassed into the land and the hut on 4-11-1955, and that, therefore, she is liable to be ejected.  The  suit was decreed by the trial court.  On appeal, it was  reversed and in Second Appeal No. 686 of 1978, by judgment dated  28- 11-1983, the High Court reversed the decree of the appellate court  and  confirmed that of the trial  court.   Thus  this appeal. 2.The  question  is  whether  the  appellant  is  deemed   a Kudikidappukaran  within the meaning of Explanation 11-A  of Section 2(25) of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969. Section 2(25) defines Kudikidappukaran as :               "(25)  ’Kudikidappukaran’ means a  person  who               has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding               in  extent  three cents in any city  or  major               municipality  or  five  cents  in  any   other               municipality  or  ten cents in  any  panchayat               area  or  township, in  possession  either  as               owner or as tenant, on which he could erect  a               homestead and -               (a)   who  has been permitted with or  without               an  obligation  to  pay rent by  a  person  in               lawful possession of any land to have the  use

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

             and  occupation of a portion of such land  for               the purpose of erecting a homestead; or               (b)   who  has been permitted by a  person  in               lawful possession of any land to occupy,  with               or  without an obligation to pay rent,  a  hut               belonging  to such person and situate  in  the               said  land; and ’Kudikidappu’ means  the  land               and  the homestead or the hut so permitted  to               be  erected  or  occupied  together  with  the               easements attached thereto." 637 Explanation  II-A  was introduced by Amendment Act  of  1972 with retrospective effect.  Explanation 11-A reads thus:               "Explanation   II-A.-   Notwithstanding    any               judgment,  decree  or order of  any  court,  a               person,  who on the 16th day of August,  1968,               was in occupation of any land and the dwelling               house  thereon (whether constructed by him  or               by  any  of  his  predecessors-in-interest  or               belonging  to any other person) and  continued               to  be in such occupation till the 1st day  of               January,  1970,  shall  be  deemed  to  be   a               Kudikidappukaran." The proviso was also added thereto-               "(a) in case where the dwelling house has  not               been  constructed by such person or by any  of               his predecessors-in-interest, if -               (i)   such dwelling house was constructed at a               cost,  at the time of construction,  exceeding               seven hundred and fifty rupees; or               (ii)  such  dwelling house could have, at  the               time  of construction, yielded a monthly  rent               exceeding five rupees; or               (b)if he has a building or is in possession               of any land exceeding in extent three cents in               any  city or major municipality or five  cents               in any other municipality or ten cents in  any               panchayat area or township, either as owner or               as   tenant,  on  which  he  could   erect   a               building." 3.   Though  Section  2(25)  defines  Kudikidappukaran,  the definition   by   operation  of  the   Amendment   Act   and introduction of Explanation 11-A has no materiality for  the purpose  of  this  case.   The  Explanation  11-A  is   only material.    It  contemplates  in  the  main  part  of   the definition  of  Kudikidappukaran  and  notwithstanding   any judgment, decree or order of any court, a person, who on 16- 8-1968, was in occupation of any land and the dwelling house thereon  whether  constructed  by  him  or  by  any  of  his predecessors-in-interest  or belonging to any  other  person and  continued  to be in such occupation till  1-  1-  1970, shall  be  deemed to be Kudikidappukaran.  It  would  appear that there was a chain of decisions of the Kerala High Court interpreting  in one way or the other of the  definition  of Kudikidappukaran  and to remove the doubts, thus cropped  up the   need  for  legislature  to  step  in   and   introduce Explanation   II-A,  with  retrospective  effect.    As   to operation  of  this  Explanation, what  is  relevant  to  be considered  is  that  the  person  claiming  to  be   deemed Kudikidappukaran, he/she shall be in occupation of the  land and the dwelling house as on 16-8-1968, whether  constructed by  himself or by herself or by any of his  predecessors-in- interest  or  it may belong to any  other  person.   Another condition  to be fulfilled is that the person  continues  to remain  in possession till 1-1-1970.  Under General  Clauses

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Act, male includes female.  On satisfying these requirements the   person   in   possession  shall  be   deemed   to   be Kudikidappukaran.   In the plaint it was admitted  that  the appellant  trespassed in the building on 4-11-1955 and  took up  residence therein.  In view of that admission since  she came  into  the occupation of the building as  on  5-11-1955 much  before  the  specified  date and  remained  to  be  in possession even till date, the necessary conclusion would be that she became the deemed Kudikidappukaran. 638 4.   This Court, in S. Appukuttan v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma 1 interpreting  Explanation 11-A introduced by 1972  Amendment Act held that the restricted interpretation cannot be  given to  the definition under Explanation II-A.  The  Explanation equates  an occupant of a homestead or a hut thereon  during the  relevant period with a Kudikidappukaran as  defined  in the   main  clause.   Accordingly,  anyone  satisfying   the requirements  of Explanation 11-A and its proviso  would  be statutorily deemed as one permitted to occupy a homestead or a  hut  thereon as envisaged in sub-clauses (a) and  (b)  of Section  2(25) and would automatically be entitled  to  have the  status  of  Kudikidappukaran and to  all  the  benefits flowing therefrom. 5.   In that view of the matter and in view of the admission of  the  respondents in the plaint  and  the  interpretation given hereinbefore, it must be held that the appellant is  a deemed  Kudikidappukaran within the meaning  of  Explanation II-A  to Section 2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms  Act.   As such  the  appellant  is not liable to  be  ejected  by  the decree.  Thereby the suit is not sustainable and the  decree granted by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court is clearly illegal.  The appeal is accordingly allowed and  the suits  stand  dismissed.  Parties to bear  their  own  costs throughout. 639