JUDGMENT K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Defendants in O.S.No.27/83 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode are the appellants. The respondent filed the above suit for recovery of the plaint B schedule property with arrears of rent. The plaintiff contended that the suit property originally belonged to his father as per a kanom deed of 1959. There was a shed in this property used for storing manure. One Ayyappan was the watchman of this property and he used to occupy this shed. The plaintiffs case is that when the watchman was out of station the defendants unlawfully trespassed into this B schedule shed on 27-12-82 and reduced the same to their possession. The plaintiff filed criminal complaint and later filed the present suit for recovery of possession of B schedule shed with arrears of rent. 2. The defendants who are husband and wife filed a joint written statement. They alleged that the plaintiffs watchman was not residing in the plaint schedule shed. Plaintiff agreed to assign 10 cents of property for a consideration of Rs.2000/-. On 15-10-76 the plaintiff accepted this entire consideration and promised to execute an assignment deed within a period of six months. Plaintiff handed over possession of this property and the defendants constructed a shed therein and are residing therein. The trespass alleged on 27-12-82 was denied. The defendants had also raised a contention that they are kudikidappukars in respect of the plaint schedule property. Issue No.7 was raised on this contention and the matter was referred to the Kunnamangalam Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal by its finding dated 31-7-84 found that the defendants were kudikidappukars in the plaint schedule shed. Based on the decision of the Land Tribunal the trial court dismissed the suit. 3. Aggrieved by that finding the plaintiff filed AS.No.47/85 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode and the learned Sub Judge reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal and held that the defendants were not kudikidappukars in plaint B schedule shed and the dismissal of the suit was not correct. However, the matter was remanded to the court below to consider whether the oral agreement set up by the defendants was correct or not. This is challenged in this appeal. 4. However, the matter was remanded to the court below to consider whether the oral agreement set up by the defendants was correct or not. This is challenged in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that a kudikidappu right would come into existence even after 1-1-70 and therefore the occupation of the hut by the defendants is sufficient to constitute a right of kudikidappu for the defendants in the plaint B schedule property. It is true that there is no express prohibition in the Land Reforms Act for creating any kudikidappu right subsequent to 1-1-70. But that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the defendants in this case established right of kudikidappu in the property. The Land Tribunal found that these defendants are kudikidappukars on ,the basis of the report filed by the Revenue Inspector, who conducted an enquiry in this matter. The enquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector is incorporated in the order of the Land Tribunal. That says that the first defendant Appu owned 16 cents of land in R.S. 453/6 of Kunnamangalam desom and he sold this property to one Kunnath Velayudhan in October 1978. The second defendant Narayani was in possession of 9.14 cents of land in R.S.43/4 of Poolakode desom. So it is clear that at the time when the first defendant started occupying the hut on 15-10-76, he was in possession of 16 cents of land in R.S.453/6, so at the time when the alleged permission to occupy the hut was given to the first defendant, he had been in possession of more than 10 cents of land. So going by the definition of kudikidappukaran contained in S.2(25) of the K.L.R. Act he is not a kudikidappukaran. Permission given to any person who is in possession of land exceeding the statutory limits prescribed under S.2(25) of the Act will not come within the category of kudikidappukaran. The counsel for the appellants contended that at that point of time the defendant did not contend that he was a kudikidappukaran, but at the time when the question of kudikidappu came up for consideration the defendant was not in possession of the property beyond the statutory limit and so he was a kudikidappukaran. I am not persuaded myself to accept this contention. I am not persuaded myself to accept this contention. The possession of land by the person, who seeks to avail the benefit of kudikidappukaran is to be decided with reference to the date of permission given, especially when it is alleged that kudikidappu right sprang into existence after 1-1-70. This is not a case where the defendants avail the benefit of the explanation IIA of S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 5. In the result, the lower appellate court was fully justified in reversing the finding of the Land Tribunal. I find no reason to interfere with the same. The civil miscellaneous appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed, however, without costs.