Judgment :- 1. This second appeal comes before us on a reference by one of us. The question involved is, whether a person jointly entitled to either land or homestead with others can claim the benefits of S.2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964, as amended by Act 35 of 1969, for short the Act, as a kudikidappukaran. 2. This second appeal arises from a suit for recovery of possession. This is the second time that this matter comes before this Court. When the matter came before this Court in second appeal earlier, the defendant invoked the protection given under the Act to a kudikidappukaran since he had not raised this question before the Courts below. This Court remanded the matter to the trial court to decide whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of a kudikidappukaran. 3. The trial court as well as the appellate court found against the defendant-appellant and held that since be owned land jointly with two others as member of a Hindu joint family, he could not be said to be a person not owning land within the definition of S.2 (25) of the Act. It is this finding that is under challenge in this second appeal. 4. Counsel for the appellant contends, and rightly, that the courts before have held against the defendant without adverting to the decisions of this Court, which had taken the opposite view. According to him, a person can be denied the protection of S.2 (25) of the Act only if he held land or homestead of his own and not when he owned the same jointly with others. This, according to him, is the interpretation given by this Court to S.2 (25) of the Act. 5. It is useful to extract S.2 (25) of the Act for a better appreciation of the contentions of the appellant in the context of the decisions of this Court. S.2 (25), relevant for our purpose, reads as follows: "(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...." 6. In this case, it cannot be disputed that the appellant owns 30 cents of land jointly with his brothers in Thuravoor and that there is a homestead in the said property jointly owned by him with his brothers. It was on this admitted fact that the appellant owned land and homestead with his brothers jointly, that the courts below declined to extend the protection under the Act. This finding is clearly against the following decisions of this Court. 7. The point arose for decision first when the matter came before Raman Nayar C. J. in Achuthan v. Sulochanan 971 KLT 549. In that case, the respondent did not enter appearance and the matter was decided ex parte. The learned Chief Justice held, that the possession of the tarwad or the wife cannot attract the disqualification of being a person in possession as owner of land, for the simple reason that their possession is not that of the petitioner nor their ownership his ownership even if he might be a joint owner of the tarwad property. The same matter between the same parties was again heard by Raghavan, Ag. C. J. when the matter was brought before him by the respondent therein when he moved by a separate application for re-hearing the matter since he had no notice of the revision. That decision is reported in 1971 KLT 846. The principle enunciated by Raman Nayar C. J. was reiterated by Raghavan, Ag. C. J. and it was held that a person does not lose his rights as a kudikidappukaran if his wife or tarwad is possessed of properties; in either case the person is not in possession of the properties the properties of his wife and the properties of his tarwad. The matter pointedly arose again before Poti J., who agreed with the principle enunciated in the decisions reported in 1971 KLT 549 and 1971 KLT 846. That decision is reported in Devaki Amma v. Kunhirama Marar 1974 KLT 758. The learned judge observed that persons who owned properties along with others as members of the joint family will not be disentitled from claiming the benefit under S.2 (25) of the Act. It was observed that a member of a tarwad has no doubt, a right to seek partition. The learned judge observed that persons who owned properties along with others as members of the joint family will not be disentitled from claiming the benefit under S.2 (25) of the Act. It was observed that a member of a tarwad has no doubt, a right to seek partition. But the time at which he may get possession of his share and what extent of property he will get in a partition are matters which cannot be anticipated and therefore be cannot be said to be a person in possession of land either as owner or as tenant on which he can erect a homestead. The learned judge therefore held that in spite of the fact that the tenant before him held properties jointly with other members of his tarwad, he was still entitled to claim the benefits under the Act. 8. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, in the decision reported in Pennamma v. St. Paul's Convent, 1972 KLT 12 had to consider whether joint ownership of homestead was a bar for a person to claim the protection contained in S.2 (25) of the Act. It was held that a person can be said to own a homestead only when that person has a homestead of his own and that a joint interest in a homestead is hot sufficient to take a person out of the definition contained in S.2 (25) of the Act. Isaac J. observed that a person, can be said to have a thing only if it is his own. Though the section does not use the words 'his own', this is the only possible construction that can be given to the expression "in possession either as owner or as tenant". 9. The principles of these decisions have to be founded on the general law of joint ownership. "No coparcener is entitled to any special interest in the coparcenary property, nor is he entitled to exclusive possession of any part of the property. As observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council, in 9 Moore's Indian Appeals 539, 'there is community of interest and unity of possession between all the members of the family.... Each coparcener is entitled to joint possession and enjoyment of the family property. If any coparcener is excluded from joint possession or enjoyment he is entitled to enforce his right by a suit. Each coparcener is entitled to joint possession and enjoyment of the family property. If any coparcener is excluded from joint possession or enjoyment he is entitled to enforce his right by a suit. A coparcener has no right without the consent of the other coparceners, to erect a building on land belonging to the joint family, or any portion thereof, so as to alter materially the conditions of the property or to do anything with the property which would interfere with the joint enjoyment thereof". (See Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla,14th Edn. p. 293). It is therefore clear that a member of a joint family has no ownership or possession exclusively on any portion of the 'property belonging to the joint family. Therefore, the fact that a person owns land with others as joint tenant cannot disentitle him from the protection extended under S.2 (25) of the Act. On the words of the section, this is the only possible conclusion that we can arrive at. Perhaps, the Legislature had in view only small land owners and did not have in view persons whose joint family owned extensive properties. But this is a matter not for us but for the Legislature. 10. Whether the principle enunciated in the above decisions can be extended to tenants-in-common is a doubtful proposition since possession of a tenant-in-common is different from the possession of a coparcener or the member of a tarwad. However, we leave that question open since the question in that form is not before us. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Allowed.