In Brief
A property owner's wife and children sought to build a boundary wall to separate parts of inherited land from areas occupied by others claiming kudikidappu (residential tenant) rights. The High Court allowed their appeal and granted permission for the boundary wall, but found the occupants were entitled to only 10 cents of land. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the plaintiffs could only build a boundary wall to the extent their predecessor was shown to own in an earlier judgment (2 acres 35 cents). The Court found the High Court could not make findings on kudikidappu rights in a suit merely seeking boundary permission, and quashed the High Court's order, restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.