Judgment :- 1. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased kudikidappukari. Being aggrieved by the order of the Government allowing the third respondent's application under S.75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 for acquisition of land to shift the kudikidappu, the appellants filed O. P. No. 255 of 1979. The only contention urged on behalf of the appellants was that the third respondent was not the owner of the land, but only a co-owner. The learned judge dismissed the Original Petition stating that a co-owner was an owner for the purpose of making an application under S.75 (3). 2. In this appeal, the only contention urged on behalf of the appellants is again as regards the co-owner's right to present an application under S.75 (3). There is no case that the finding of the Government was vitiated for any other reason. 3. Counsel for the appellants Shri. Chandrasekharan points out that an owner is defined under S.2(40) as a person who is "entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land". It is therefore contended that a co-owner, being not an absolute owner, is not an owner for the purpose of making an application to shift the kudikidappu. Counsel relies upon the decision of the Full Bench in Pathumma v. Land Tribunal, 1980 K.L.T. 155 (F.B.). 4. The Full Bench considered sub-section (2) of S.75, which says: "(2) (1), the person in possession of the land on which there is a homestead or hut in the occupation of a kudikidappukaran may, if he bonafide requires the land (a) (b) (c) require the kudikidappukaran, to shift to a new site belonging to him, subject to the following conditions, namely: ................................................... supplied) and stated: (emphasis "In other words, what is contemplated by the provision is that the landholder can require the kudikidappukaran to shift only to an alternate site in respect of which he has the legal competence to transfer ownership and possession to the kudikidappukaran. It then follows that a property which does not exclusively belong to the landholder and over which he has only an undivided interest as a co-owner or a joint tenant cannot be regarded as a site 'belonging to him' for the purposes of this sub-section." The Full Bench held that a co-owner cannot be considered to be a person in possession of the site belonging to him for the purpose of shifting the kudikidappu. The reason for so stating was that the alternative site to which the kudikidappu is shifted must be a site sufficiently secure for the kudikidappukaran to remain. If the right of the co-owner is not an absolute right, but a right subject to the rights of other co-owners, he does not have the requisite capacity to independently transfer the full ownership and possession of the site to the kudikidappukaran and the kudikidappu will not be therefore secure in the alternative site. That principle which is relevant to sub-s. (2), and which is meant to secure the right of the kudikidappukaran in the alternative site, has no application in construing the provisions of sub-s. (3) of S.75, where the only question is whether the person claiming to shift the kudikidappu by means of an acquisition of a new site is a person who has sufficient interest as owner to claim the benefit of that sub-section. The fact that he is not the sole owner, but only a co-owner, is not a fact that is relevant to the interest protected under sub-s. (3). If as a co-owner he has, in the view of the Government, the requisite competence to seek the benefit of the sub-section, the Government may, on proper consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, allow his request for acquisition of land to which the kudikidappu may be shifted. The applicant's limited right of ownership has no bearing on the security conferred on the kudikidappu in the new site. The site to which the kudikidappu is shifted is the site which has been acquired by the Government and the ownership in which is conferred on the kudikidappukaran free of all encumbrances. In the circumstances the principle stated by the Full Bench, in the context of sub-section (2) of S.75, is not germane to the consideration of the question arising in this appeal. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the learned Judge. We dismiss the appeal. We make no order as to costs. Dismissed.