ORDER V. S. Malimath, J. 1. The short question for examination is as to the respondent's status as a kudikidappukari in respect of a hut in a mortgaged property in which she claims that she was residing. A decree for redemption having been passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, an objection was raised in execution proceedings to the effect that the respondent in this case has the status of a kudikidappukari under S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. What is invoked for this purpose is Explanation IV of S.2(25), which reads as follows: "Where a mortgage with possession erects for his residence a homestead, or resides in a hut already in exis tence, on the land to which the mortgage relates, he shall, notwithstanding the redemption or the mortgage, be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran in respect of such homestead or hut, provided that at the time of the redemption – (a) he has no other kudikidappu or residential building belonging to him, or any land exceeding 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 of as tenant, on which be could erect a homestead: and (b) his annual income does not exceed two thousand rupees." It is clear from this provision that a statutory presumption is raised in favour of a mortgagee with possession, if he erects for his residence a homestead, or resides in a hut already in existence, on the land to which the mortgage relates, that he is a kudikidappukaran and that he is entitled to the rights of a kudikidappukaran if he established in respect of such homestead or hut. Clause (a) of the Explanation requires the mortgagee in possession to establish that he has no other kudikidappu or residential building belonging to him, or any land of the area specified in the clause depending upon its location, and clause (b) requires that his annual income doss not exceed Rs. 2,000/-. The person who claims the status of a kudikidappukaran invoking Explanation IV to S.2 (25) has to establish all these factors. 2. The order of the Land Tribunal only specifies one of the conditions viz., that the respondent mortgages was residing in a hut already in existence on the mortgaged land. 2,000/-. The person who claims the status of a kudikidappukaran invoking Explanation IV to S.2 (25) has to establish all these factors. 2. The order of the Land Tribunal only specifies one of the conditions viz., that the respondent mortgages was residing in a hut already in existence on the mortgaged land. The Land Tribunal has not applied its mind to the other two requirements of clause (a) and (b) of Explanation IV of S.2(25). The respondent has also not placed any material to establish the two conditions specified in clause (a) and (b) of Explanation IV. As the burden was on the respondent, it was for her to place necessary evidence to satisfy all the conditions of deemed status of a kudikidappukari in respect of the hut in question. The fact that the petitioner remained absent on several days of hearing does not come to the aid of the respondent, as the burden is on her of placing, evidence to satisfy all the ingredients. Though there is a report of the authorised officer, which undoubtedly the respondent can rely upon to establish her case, the same also does not contain any material to prove the conditions specified in clause (a) and (b) of Explanation IV. If the authorised officers reported is not adequate for the respondent to establish her case, nothing prevents her from adducing evidence in respect of the two conditions. It is not her case, that she was denied an opportunity to place evidence before the Land Tribunal in this behalf. The respondent not having availed of the opportunity to lead evidence, she cannot make any complaint in this revision petition to contend that she had no opportunity and therefore the matter should be remitted for fresh disposal, after giving her an opportunity of leading evidence. I am not satisfied that this is a fit case in which the respondent should be given any opportunity as she had ample opportunity in this behalf before the Land Tribunal. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the respondent not having led any evidence to prove the conditions specified in clause (a) and (b) of Explanation IV of S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, she has failed to establish her status as a kudikidappukari. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the respondent not having led any evidence to prove the conditions specified in clause (a) and (b) of Explanation IV of S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, she has failed to establish her status as a kudikidappukari. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed, the order of the executing court is set aside and the finding of the Land Tribunal is also set aside. The case is remitted to the executing court to take further action in the execution petition on the basis that the respondent has not clearly established her status as a kudikidappukari. No costs.