Appellant took up the matter before the Kerala High Court again in Second Appeal.
The predecessor of respondent late Geevargis Koshy was the owner of a building which he rented out to the appellant in the year 1963 for companyducting a tea shop.
As per a settlement in the family of the said Geevargis the said building and the land on which it is situate have been allotted to the share of first respondent.
Having held so the Full Bench proceeded to companysider whether appellant has such an entitlement.
Hence the matter was placed before a Full Bench which again companycurred with the view adopted in Chakkara Ramakrishnan Supra .
Accordingly the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed by the trial companyrt but the District Court before which respondents filed a regular appeal, reversed the finding and decreed the suit for recovery of possession on the premise that appellant has in his possession land in excess of ten cents in area.
Two suits were filed in respect of this building, one by the appellant for a declaration that the building is his, and the other by the first respondent together with Geevargis Koshy for recovery of possession of the building.
It was found that the land in his possession is number in companyownership with others and hence the Full Bench repelled his claim to have Kudikidappu rights.
When the Second Appeal came up before a Division Bench an earlier decision of another Division Bench was cited before it Chakkara Ramakrishnan and others vs. Kuruvaikkandy Kumaran and others 1980 Kerala Law Notes 19 .
Thomas J. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that when a person has land in companyownership with another, whatever be its extent, it would number disentitle him to claim the rights of a Kudikidappukaran under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 for short the Act .
