# L. V ASANTHA KUMARI v. BALAMMAL AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1994] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 215
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1994-11-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1911' of 1984
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, N. Venkatachala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/l-v-asantha-kumari-v-balammal-and-ors-12549
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1964:
Section 2(25) Explanation H-A~'Kudikidappukaran'-Meaning ofAny one satisfying the requirements of Explanation II-A and its proviso
A
B
would be deemed 'Kudikidappukaran '.
C
Words and Phrases:
'Kudikidappukaran '-Meaning of-In the context of Kera/a Land
Reforms Act, I 964.
By a sale deed S sold certain property to V. By an agreement D
respondent agreed to purchase the said property from V. Based on .
that, he filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed and
u'ttimately confirmed by the High Court. Thereafter the respondents
filed a suit for possession on the ground that the appellant trespassed
into the land and the hut and therefore, she was liable to be ejected.
The suit was decreed. On appeal it was reversed. The High Court in E
second appeal confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. Hence
this appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. The appellant is 11 deemed Kudikidappukaran within F
the meaning of Explanation II-A to section 2(25) of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1964. 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 tile High Court is clearly illegal.
.
[216 H, 219 C]
2. As to operation of Explanation II-A what is relevant to be
considered
is
that
the
perwn
claiming
to
be
deemed
Kudikidappukaran, he/she shall be in occupation of the land and the
dwelling house as on August 16, 1%8, whether constructed by himself
or by herself or by any of his predecessors-in-interest or it may belong
G
to any other person. Another condition to be fulfilled is that the person H
215
·216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A
continued to remain in possession till January 1, 1970. 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 November 4, 1955 and took residence
therein. In view of that admission since she came into the occupation of
the building as on November 5, 1955 much before the ·specified date
B
and remained to be in possession even till date, the necessary
conclusion would be that she became the deemed Kudikidappukaran.
[218 E to G)
c
D
E
F
G
S. Appukuttan v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma and Anr., [1988) 2 SCC 372,
relied on.

## Text

L. V ASANTHA KUMAR!
v.
BALAMMAL AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 30, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
Kera/a Land Reforms Act, 1964:
Section 2(25) Explanation H-A~'Kudikidappukaran'-Meaning ofAny one satisfying the requirements of Explanation II-A and its proviso
A
B
would be deemed 'Kudikidappukaran '.
C
Words and Phrases:
'Kudikidappukaran '-Meaning of-In the context of Kera/a Land
Reforms Act, I 964.
By a sale deed S sold certain property to V. By an agreement D
respondent agreed to purchase the said property from V. Based on .
that, he filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed and
u'ttimately confirmed by the High Court. Thereafter the respondents
filed a suit for possession on the ground that the appellant trespassed
into the land and the hut and therefore, she was liable to be ejected.
The suit was decreed. On appeal it was reversed. The High Court in E
second appeal confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. Hence
this appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. The appellant is 11 deemed Kudikidappukaran within F
the meaning of Explanation II-A to section 2(25) of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1964. 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 tile High Court is clearly illegal.
.
[216 H, 219 C]
2. As to operation of Explanation II-A what is relevant to be
considered
is
that
the
perwn
claiming
to
be
deemed
Kudikidappukaran, he/she shall be in occupation of the land and the
dwelling house as on August 16, 1%8, whether constructed by himself
or by herself or by any of his predecessors-in-interest or it may belong
G
to any other person. Another condition to be fulfilled is that the person H
215
·216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A
continued to remain in possession till January 1, 1970. 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 November 4, 1955 and took residence
therein. In view of that admission since she came into the occupation of
the building as on November 5, 1955 much before the ·specified date
B
and remained to be in possession even till date, the necessary
conclusion would be that she became the deemed Kudikidappukaran.
[218 E to G)
c
D
E
F
G
S. Appukuttan v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma and Anr., [1988) 2 SCC 372,
relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 1911' of
1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.83 of the Kerala High Court
in S.A. No. 686 of 1978-C.
,
.
G. Viswanatha Iyer, N. Sudhakaran, for the Appellant.
P.S. Poti, S. Balakrishnan, for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered by:
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 October 5, 1955, Subramonian Pillai sold the property
in question to one Vaikuntam Pillai. By agreement dated October 15, 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 November 18, ,
1963. Thereafter, the respondents filed O.S. No. 76/67 on the file ofMunsif
Court, Trivandrum for possession on the ground that the appellant
trespassed into the land and the hut on November 4, 1955, and that,
therefore, she is liable to be ejected. The suit was decreed by the trial court.
pn appeal, it was reversed and in Second Appeal No. 686/78, by judgment ·
dated' November 28, 1983, the High Court reversed the decree of the
appellate court and conf!p11ed that of the trial court. Thus this appeal.
.
.
The question js whether the ;ippellaμt is deemed a Kudikidappukaran
H , within the meaning of Explanation II-A of ·section 2(25) of the Act 1 of
L. V. KUMAR! v. BALAMMAL
217
1964 as amended by A1;t 35 of 1969. Section 2(25) defines A
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, B
in possession ei1her 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 and occupation of a portion of such land for the C
purpose of erecting a homestead; or
(b) who has been permitted by a person in lawful possession
of any land to o;cupy, with or without an obligation to pay
rent, a hut belonging to such person and situate in the said D
land; and 'kudikidappu' means the land and the homestead or
the hut so permi1ted to be erected or occupied together with
the easements attiched thereto."
Explanation II-A was introduced by Aniendment Act of 1972 with.
retrospective effect. Explanation II-A reads tlius:
·"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 contmued 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 wLere the dwelling house has not been
constructed by such person or by any of his predecessors-ininterest, if -
(i) such dwelling house was constructed at a cost, at the time
E
F .
G
of construction, exceeding seven hundred and fifty rupees; or. H
•.'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
(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."
Though section 2(25) defines Kudikidappukaran, the definition by
operation of the Amendment Act and introduction of Explanation II-A has
no materiality for the purpose of this case. The Explanation II-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 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 first day of January,
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 relev~t 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 August 16, 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
continued to remain in possession till January 1, 1970 under general
Clauses Act, male includes female. On satisfying these requiJ:ements the
person in possession shall be deemed to be Kudikidappukaran. In the plaint
_ it was admitted that the appellant trespassed in the building on November 4,
1955 and took up residence therein. In view of that admission since she
came into the occupation of the building as on November 5, 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.
This Court, in S. Appukuttar v. Thundiyil Janaki Amma and Anr.,
[1988] 2 SCC 372, interpreting Explanation II-A introduced by 1972.
H
Amendment Act held that the restricted interpretation cannot be given to
...
L. V. KUMAR! v. BALAMMAL
219
the definition under Explanation II-A. The Explanation equates an occupant A
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 II-A and its proviso would be
statutory deemed as one perm. tted to occupy a homestead or a hut thereon
as envisaged in sub-clause (a) and (b) of section 2(25) and would
automatically be entitled to have the status of Kudikidappukaran and to all B
the benefits flowing therefrom.
In that view of the matter and in view of the admission of the
respondents in the plaint and the interpretation given herein before, 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 C
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.
G.N ..
Appeal allowed.
D