Judgment :- 1. The civil revision petition was disposed of once ex parte by the learned Chief Justice: and since the respondent filed CMP. No. 5338 of 1971 claiming that he had no notice of the revision and the said petition has been allowed, the revision petition is re-heard. 2. The short question in the revision petition is whether a person loses his right as kudikidappukaran if bis wife or tarwad is possessed of properties. 3. The way the District Judge has approached the question borders on the absurd. The reasoning of the District Judge is that under S.2 (25) of Act 1 of 1964 'kudikidappukaran' means a person who has neither a homestead nor any land either as owner or as tenant in possession, on which he could erect a homestead; that under S.2 (43) 'person' includes, inter alia, a family or a joint family; that under S.2 (14) 'family' means husband, wife and their minor children; and that, therefore, if a member of a family like the wife possesses properties, her husband, who claims to be a kudikidappukaran, loses, that right, and similarly, if his tarwad possesses properties, the tarwad being itself a person and he being a member of the tarwad, again loses his right. 4. The absurdity of the reasoning will be patent when a hypothetical case is pointed out. By definition 'person' includes a company too; and if a company possesses properties, will a person who is a member of the company lose his right to kudikidappu? Obviously not. In one case the wife is a member of the family and the person is another member: since a member of h is family is possessed of properties, he is to lose his claim for kudikidappu! In the other case bis tarwad is possessed of properties (he may be in joint possession of them too): and for that reason he is to lose his claim! Either cannot happen: in either case, the person is not in possession of the properties the properties of his wife and the properties of his tarwad. 5. The civil revision is allowed, the order of the District Judge is set aside and the order of the Munsif is restored. The respondent will pay the costs of the petitioner throughout.