Judgment :- 1. The only question for decision in this civil revision petition is as to whether the 1st respondent's application under S.77(1) read with S.75(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is liable to be dismissed for want of a notice to the revision petitioner as required by the first proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.77. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The 1st respondent in this CRP is the owner of the land where one Ankan had a kudikidappu. Ankan died. The revision petitioner and one Ankan Achuthan are his legal representatives and they continued to reside in the kudikidappu. The land owner issued a notice to Ankan Achuthan requiring him to shift the kudikidappu to an alternative site offered by the landowner. No notice was given to the revision petitioner. She was however made a party to the application under S.77(1) of the Act. The Land Tribunal as well as the appellate authority have held that the notice to Ankan Achuthan is sufficient compliance to the requirements of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.77 of the Act and in that view of the matter has directed the shifting of the kudikidappu where Ankan Achuthan and the revision petitioner are residing. A notice under the first proviso to S.77(1) of the Act is a statutory requirement before an application for shifting of the kudikidappu can be filed. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the notice to Ankan Achuthan is sufficient notice also to the revision petitioner who is residing in the same kudikidappu It is also pointed out that in the notice issued to Ankan Achuthan the came of the petitioner is also shown as a person residing in the kudikidappu and she should therefore be held to have notice under the first proviso to S.77(1) of the Act. We find it difficult to agree with this proposition. S.78 of the Act enacts that the rights of a kudikidappukaran in his kudikidappu are heritable. Hence on the death of Ankan his rights as a kudikidappukaran devolved on his children in equal rights as tenants-in-common. The revision petitioner has therefore a right independent of Ankan Achuthan in the kudikidappu inherited from her father 3. S.78 of the Act enacts that the rights of a kudikidappukaran in his kudikidappu are heritable. Hence on the death of Ankan his rights as a kudikidappukaran devolved on his children in equal rights as tenants-in-common. The revision petitioner has therefore a right independent of Ankan Achuthan in the kudikidappu inherited from her father 3. Counsel for the Ist respondent relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanji v. Trustees, Port of Bombay (AIR 1963 SC 468) wherein it has been held with reference to a notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Properly Act: "Once it is held that the tenancy was joint, a notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient, and the suit for the same reason was also good." That principle can have no application to a case where the leasehold right held by different persons is as tenants in common, in which case notice to one of toe co-tenants will not be sufficient notice to the others. Raman Nayar J., as he then was, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kangyo's case (supra) stated in Konnappan v. Manikkam (1967 KLT 585): "The observation in Kanji v. Trustees, Port of Bombay (AIR 1963 SC 468) (in Para.7 of the report) that notice to one alone of several joint tenants is sufficient applies only to a case where the several tenants hold as joint tenants and not where, as in this case, they hold as tenants in common. That is clear from the emphasis placed by their Lordships on the circumstance that the tenants took the premises as joint tenants, the deed of assignment by which they acquired the lease expressly providing that they were taking as joint tenants. That is clear from the emphasis placed by their Lordships on the circumstance that the tenants took the premises as joint tenants, the deed of assignment by which they acquired the lease expressly providing that they were taking as joint tenants. Where joint owners are joint tenants there is unity of title, unity of interest and the right of survivorship in addition to unity of possession so that it might be said that any one of the joint tenants represents the entire estate indeed in the Supreme Court case already referred to it would appear that one of the two joint tenants bad died and the lease had vested solely in the other by survivorship before notice to quit was served on the other so that there was no question of the legal representatives of the deceased joint tenant having any interest whatsoever in the lease so as to require that notice should go to them. Where, however, the joint owners are only tenants in common there is only unity of possession, not of title or interest, and to determine a tenancy so held in accordance with S.106 of the Transfer of Properly Act notice must be addressed to all the tenants though proof of service on one will be prima facie proof of service on all." Vadakkel J. in Haridas v. Ramankutty (1976 KLT SN 83) has taken the view that: "The notice contemplated by the first proviso to S.77 is not a notice analogous to the notice contemplated by S.106 of the T.P. Act, as per which the tenancy itself can be terminated only by a notice issued in accordance with that section. It would be more correct to say that the notice contemplated by the first proviso to S.77 is analogous to a suit notice." Viswanatha Iyer J. in Cheekutty v. Land Tribunal (1973 KLT 352) has stressed the need of a notice under the proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.77 before an application for shifting the kudikidappu is made on the ground available under sub-s. (2) of S.75 of the Act. 4. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by Vadakkel J. that the statutory notice under the proviso is akin to a suit notice in which case even in the absence of a notice application under S.77(1) will be maintainable. 4. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by Vadakkel J. that the statutory notice under the proviso is akin to a suit notice in which case even in the absence of a notice application under S.77(1) will be maintainable. The statutory provisions in S.77(1) of the Act and the first proviso thereto make it clear that no application for shifting of a kudikidappu is maintainable unless the statutory requirement of a notice under the proviso is complied with. We are also in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Raman Nayar J., as he then was, in Konnappa's case (supra) that a notice to one co-tenant is not a notice to other co-tenants in cases where the property is held in tenancy in common, 5. The 1st respondent has no case that a notice as required by the first proviso to S.77(1) had been issued to the revision petitioner. The application for the shifting of the kudikidappu is therefore not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for want of a statutory notice under the first proviso to S.77(1) of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons we set aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority and dismiss O.A. No. 1478/1975 for shifting the kudikidappu. The CRP is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. This will not, however, preclude the 1st respondent land owner from initiating fresh steps for shifting the kudikidappu in accordance with law.