Judgment :- Defendant in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title is the appellant. Both the courts below decreed the suit. 2. There is no dispute regarding the facts of the case. The property belonged to the plaintiffs father who gifted the same to the plaintiff under Ext. A3. Plaintiff s father put up a house and permitted the defendant's father to stay in the house. According to the plaintiff, defendant and his brother jointly owned 58 cents of land which they obtained in 1966. In a partition in the year 1978, evidenced by Ext. A2, between the defendant and his brother he was allotted 29 cents of land which is fit for erecting a homestead and accordingly, even if the defendant is a kudikidappukaran he is liable to be evicted. 3. There is no dispute regarding the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The only contention raised by the defendant is that he is a kudikidappukaran as on 1-1-1970 and in that view of the matter he is not liable to be evicted from the suit property. According to the defendant as on 1-1-1970 he had no property of his own and the subsequent acquisition of 29 cents of land will not disentitle him from claiming fixity of tenure as kudikidappukaran. 4. A kudikidappukaran is defined under S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. If the conditions under explanation IIA to that section are satisfied, a person even though he is not legally a kudikidappukaran, shall be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran. Counsel for the appellantl defendant relied on two Full Bench decisions of this Court in Velayudhan v. Aishabi (1981 KLT 529 (FB)) and in Xavier v. Antony (1982 KLT 769 (FB) which have interpreted explanation IIA to S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to these decisions, as on 1-1-1970 if a person does not own or possess more than three cents of land in city or major municipality; or five cents in a municipal area; or ten cents in a Panchayat area, he shall be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran provided he is in possession of the property between 16th August, 1968 and 1st January, 1970. According to the defendant, he had satisfied these conditions and accordingly, he is a kudikidappukaran and is not liable to be evicted. 5. According to the defendant, he had satisfied these conditions and accordingly, he is a kudikidappukaran and is not liable to be evicted. 5. S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act only defines a kudikidappukaran. Even assuming that the defendant satisfies the conditions of a kudikidappukaran as mentioned in the main portion of S.2(25) or under Explanation IIA to that section, his rights under the Act are governed by the provisions contained in S.75 of the Act. S.75(1) of the Act, so far as it is relevant is to the following effect: 75(1). No kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted from his kudikidappu except on the following grounds, namely: - (iv) that he has another kudikidappu or has obtained ownership and possession of land which is fit for erecting a homestead within a distance of five kilometers from his kudikidappu: Provided that the kudikidappukaran shall not be liable to be evicted on the ground mentioned in sub-clause (iv) if the extent of the land over which he has obtained ownership and possession is not more than three cents if it is in a city or major municipality or five cents if it is in any other municipality or ten cents if it is in a Panchayat area or township: Provided further that a kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted, if he has obtained ownership and possession of land situate beyond a distance of five kilometers where the extent of such land is not less than twenty-five cents." Sub-s.2 of S.75 provides that a land owner may require the kudikidappukaran, to shift to a new site belonging to him if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. So also sub-s.3 provides that if the total extent of land held by a person, either as owner or as tenant, is less than one acre and if there is a kudikidappu on any land held by him, he may apply to the Government for acquisition of land to which the kudikidappu may be shifted. S.75(4) deals with shifting the kudikidappukaran to another part of the same land if the location of the kudikidappu cause inconvenience to the land owner. The procedure to be followed in the case of an application under S.75(2) and (4) is provided in S.77. Thus it can be seen that the rights which a kudikidappukaran is entitled to under the Kerala Land Reforms Act are mentioned in S.75. The procedure to be followed in the case of an application under S.75(2) and (4) is provided in S.77. Thus it can be seen that the rights which a kudikidappukaran is entitled to under the Kerala Land Reforms Act are mentioned in S.75. It is not as if absolute fixity of tenure is granted to a kudikidappukaran at all times and in all circumstances. If the conditions mentioned in S.75(1) are satisfied a kudikidappukaran will not be entitled to fixity of tenure over the land. Sub-clause(iv) of S.75(1) provides that if the kudikidappukaran has obtained ownership and possession of land which is fit for erecting a homestead within a distance of five kilometers from his kudikidappu he is liable to be evicted. In other 'words, even if a person is kudikidappukaran his fixity of tenure will cease as soon as he acquires ownership and possession of a land which is fit for erecting a homestead within a distance of five kilometers. The first proviso to that section also says that the new land obtained must have an extent not less than three cents in a city or major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten cents if it is a Panchayat area. Thus it is clear that even if a person is kudikidappukaran as on 1-1-1970 he will lose his fixity of tenure granted under S.75 as soon as he acquires any land with possession of more than 10 cents if it is in a Panchayat area. Thus even though the defendant may be a kudikidappukaran as on 1-1-1970 he is liable to be evicted from the kudikidappu provided he acquires land which is more than ten cents in extent in a Panchayat area. In this case it is admitted that in 1978 under Ext. A2 partition deed the defendant obtained ownership and possession over a land having 29 cents in extent. 6. The further question to be considered is as to whether the land acquired by the defendant under Ext. A2 is fit for erecting a homestead, According to the defendant, this land is not fit for erecting a homestead for according to him it is a burial ground of the people of the locality. The Lower appellate Court did not accept this contention and according to me, rightly. A2 is fit for erecting a homestead, According to the defendant, this land is not fit for erecting a homestead for according to him it is a burial ground of the people of the locality. The Lower appellate Court did not accept this contention and according to me, rightly. It has come out in evidence that the property was in joint ownership of defendant and his brother and after the partition in the year 1978, in the other portion of the land, allotted to the defendant's brother, he has constructed a house and is residing there. Ext. D1 report dated 14-1-1987 also shows that this land is fit for erecting a homestead and that it is not a burial ground. It is also said that 30 meters away from that property there is a public well belonging to the Government. In these circumstances, the evidence given by D Ws.2 and 3 that it is a burial ground and not fit for erecting a homestead cannot be accepted. 7. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that at any rate even for evicting a kudikidappukaran, application should have been filed before the Land Tribunal and the civil court has no jurisdiction to evict a kudikidappukaran even if the conditions mentioned in S.75 are satisfied. I am not inclined to agree with that contention. The circumstances in which a kudikidappukaran can be evicted are mentioned in S.75. As stated earlier, under S.75(1) he can be evicted if he obtains ownership and possession of a land which is fit for erecting a homestead. Under S.75(1) it is not stated that an application should be filed before the Land Tribunal. But when we come to S.75(2) and (4) which are provisions for shifting a kudikidappukaran, a provision is made in S.77 of the Act that such applications shall be filed before the Land Tribunal. There is no such provision in the Act saying that application for evicting a kudikidappukaran shall be filed before the Land Tribunal and accordingly the civil court does not lose its jurisdiction to pass a decree for recovery if the conditions mentioned in S.75(1) are satisfied. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in that contention as well. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in that contention as well. In view of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.