Judgment :- Ramakrishnan, J. This Revision Petition is coming up before us on the basis of an order to post the same along with C.R.P.No.1404 of 1988 referred to Full Bench by a separate order. As such (here is no separate order of reference in (his case indicating the question to be decided by the Full Bench. However, we may state the specific question arising for consideration in the Revision thus: "Whether one among the two legal representatives of a deceased kudikidappukaran who does not own or possess any land either independently or along with others, will become disentitled to purchase the kudikidappu of the deceased as an heir, if the other heir has land exceeding the extent mentioned in S.2(25) of the KLR Act in his possession as owner on which he could erect a homestead?" 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are thus: Petitioner is the landlord of the property scheduled to O. A.No. 58 of 1985 filed before the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode under S.80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short "the KLR act" ). Deceased lather of the first respondent was admittedly a kudikidappukaran under the petitioner. On his death, his right as a kudikidappukaran in the application schedule property admittedly devolved on the first respondent and her brother, they being the only legal heirs of the deceased. Originally O.A.No. 58 of 1985 was filed both by the first respondent and her brother. Later the brother filed an application to delete his name stating that he has joined in the application inadvertently and that he is an unnecessary party. That application, though opposed by the petitioner, was allowed by the Land Tribunal. It has to be noted that the brother of the first respondent filed the application for deleting his name only when the petitioner has pointed out that he owns and possesses about 68.5 cents of land where he could erect a homestead or a hut. First respondent is not admittedly having any land as owner or tenant either individually or along with any other person. The Land Tribunal after due enquiries allowed the application and granted the prayer for purchase of 10 cents of land in R.S.No.134/1 of Chelavoor Village and Desom wherein the but occupied by the first respondent is situated. First respondent is not admittedly having any land as owner or tenant either individually or along with any other person. The Land Tribunal after due enquiries allowed the application and granted the prayer for purchase of 10 cents of land in R.S.No.134/1 of Chelavoor Village and Desom wherein the but occupied by the first respondent is situated. The order of the Land Tribunal was confirmed in appeal, A.A.No.160 of 1987, as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority (LR) dated 31-1-1989. The Appellate Authority in its order pointed out that it is on record that the site covered by the application had been in the possession of the petitioner's grand father at least from 1917 onwards and the petitioner has only inherited the property. Revision has been filed under S.103 of the KLR Act. 3. Relevant portions of the provisions contained in the K.L.R. Act with reference to which the question has to be decided can be usefully referred to at this stage. The main part of the definition of the word 'kudikidappukaran' contained in S.2(25) is in the following terms: "Kudikidappukaran" means a person who has neither a homestead nor any land exceeding in extent 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 or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead." "Person" has been defined as per S.2(43) to include company, family, joint family, association or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property'. The word "owner' has been defined as per S.2(40) to mean a person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land including the categories of persons indicated in clauses (a), (b) & (c) of S.2(40). The word "owner' has been defined as per S.2(40) to mean a person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land including the categories of persons indicated in clauses (a), (b) & (c) of S.2(40). The relevant portion of S.75 conferring fixity of kudikidappukars is in the following terms: 'Kudikidappukaran to have fixity.-(1) No Kudikidappukaran shall be liable to be evicted from his kudikidappu except on the following grounds, namely: (i) that he has alienated his right of kudikidappu to a person other than (a) a member of his family; or (b) a person who has no other homestead or any land in possession, either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead and whose annual income does not exceed two thousand rupees; (ii) that he has rented or leased out his entire kudikidappu to another person for a period of not less than two years; (iii) that he has ceased to reside in the kudikidappu continuously for a period of two years; or (iv) that he lias 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." (rest omitted) Section 78 which declared the right of kudikidappukaran to be heritable but not alienable except in certain cases is thus: "Right of kudikidappukaran to be heritable but not alienable except in certain cases:-The right of a kudikidappukaran in his kudikidappu shall be heritable but not alienable except to any person mentioned in sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) of cl.(i) of sub-sec. (1) of S.75." The main part of S.80A which conferred right to purchase kudikidappu on kudikidappukaran is in the following terms: "Right of kudikidappukaran to purchase his kudikidappu.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, a kudikidappukaran shall, subject to the provisions of this section, have the right to purchase the kudikidappu occupied by him and lands adjoining thereto." (rest omitted) Section SOB which enables a kudikidappukaran to file an application for purchase of his kudikidappu is thus: "Procedure for purchase by kudikidappukaran.-(1) A kudikidappukaran entitled under S.80A to purchase the kudikidappu occupied by him and lands adjoining thereto may apply to the Land Tribunal for such purchase." (rest omitted) Rules 79 to 89 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 (for short "the rules") prescribe the forms in which the application is to be filed and the manner in which the Land Tribunal shall conduct the enquiry and dispose of the application finally. R.79(1) prescribes that the application shall be in Form No. 41 appended to the Rules. 4. From the above provisions, it follows that a kudikidappukaran may be an individual or. other body of individuals whether incorporated or not in the light of the definition of the word 'person' contained in S.2(43) of the KLR Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Lalitha v. Bhaskaran (1977 KLT 254) has specifically observed thus: "The definition of person' as including 'body of individuals' among other things appears to be wide enough to cover the case of co-owners as well. Co-ownership is a common instance of land holding in this country; and in the absence of clear and positive provisions or telling circumstances, we cannot easily persuade ourselves that this important category was left outside the fold of the definition" The definition of the word 'kudikidappukaran' in S.2(25) of the KLR Act would also indicate that a person may be disentitled to claim the status of kudikidappukaran only if he is in possession of land exceeding the extent indicated in the said provisions either as owner or as tenant. The word 'owner' has been defined to mean a person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land. S.75 has expressly conferred fixity on kudikidappukaran subject to certain conditions. The word 'owner' has been defined to mean a person entitled to the absolute proprietorship of land. S.75 has expressly conferred fixity on kudikidappukaran subject to certain conditions. Such a kudikidappukaran having fixity has been conferred a further right to purchase his kudikidappu as per S.80A of the KLR Act. S.78 has declared the right of the kudikidappukaran to purchase his kudikidappu to be heritable unconditionally and alienable in a restricted manner as indicated in S.75. S.80B is the machinery provision prescribing the procedure to be followed for the purpose of exercising the right of purchase conferred on the kudikidappukaran. This in short is the scheme of the provisions contained in the KLR Act which conferred fixity and right to purchase on a kudikidappukaran subject to certain restrictions. 5. One of the contentions strenuously pressed was that the application under S.80B as it now stands, is one filed by one of the legal representatives alone and such a petition is not legally sustainable. In this case, admittedly, on the death of first respondent's father, his right to purchase his kudikidappu under S.80A has devolved upon the first respondent and her brother as co-owners since it was heritable under S.78 of the KLR Act. Possession of land by one or all of the legal representatives may not disqualify the legal representatives from inheriting the right to purchase which the kudikidappukaran had at the time of his death. Inheritance under S.78 is without any conditions or restrictions. It is also relevant to note that even in cases where the right to purchase vests in more than one legal representative, the right as such is indivisible and the right is only to purchase the one kudikidappu which the deceased kudikidappukaran was having at the time of his death. There is no provision in the KLR Act and the Rules enabling the several legal representatives to apply independently for purchase of proportionate portion of the kudikidappu alone and to obtain certificate of purchase in respect of a portion or portions of the kudikidappu. There is no provision in the KLR Act and the Rules enabling the several legal representatives to apply independently for purchase of proportionate portion of the kudikidappu alone and to obtain certificate of purchase in respect of a portion or portions of the kudikidappu. Since the legal representatives are to be treated as co-owners and so long as there is no provision in the KLR Act or Rules prohibiting one of the legal representatives from exercising the right vested in him as co-owner independently it may not be possible to hold that one of the legal representatives cannot maintain an application for purchase of kudikidappu in his capacity as the legal representative of the deceased kudikidappukaran. Of course, on purchase the applicant-co-owner may have to hold the property so acquired for the benefit of other co-owner or co-owners also, so long as there is no case that the other co-owners have waived or released or otherwise transferred their rights in favour of the applicant-co-owner. Though under S.72K of the KLR Act Paripoornan, J. (as he then was) has held that the original lease was in favour of two persons, the purchase certificate obtained by one, though the other lessee was not a party, will enure to the benefit of the other also (See Kundathodi Saidali v. KappilAmma Umma, (1984 KLJ 764). We are of the view that the same principle must apply to a purchase effected by one of the legal representatives under S.80B of the KLR Act also. As such we are inclined to hold that an application for purchase of kudikidappu under S.80B of the KLR Act filed only by one among the several legal representatives of a deceased kudikidappukaran is maintainable as an application filed for the benefit of all the legal representatives, who are jointly entitled to the right on devolution. 6. The further question to be considered is whether possession of land in excess of the limit specified in S.2(25) of the KLR Act by the first respondent's brother on which he could erect a home-stead or but would disentitle the first respondent from purchasing the kudikidappu or not? 6. The further question to be considered is whether possession of land in excess of the limit specified in S.2(25) of the KLR Act by the first respondent's brother on which he could erect a home-stead or but would disentitle the first respondent from purchasing the kudikidappu or not? When an application is filed by one of the several legal representatives it can generally be treated only as an application filed for and on behalf of all the legal representatives in view of the indivisible nature of the right which has devolved upon them and in view of the legal relationship existing between the several legal representatives as co-owners of the said right. Being a right heritage in an unrestricted manner and alienable in a restricted manner, it will remain as such in the hands of the legal representatives as well till they purchase the kudikidappu in exercise of such right. In a case where the legal representatives are the applicants under S.80B of the KLR Act and they are exercising the right which devolved on them as heirs, they need only prove that their predecessor, the original kudikidappukaran was entitled to purchase the kudikidappu and he was not disqualified to purchase it. The claim being one in the capacity of a legal representative, it cannot be disallowed on the ground that the legal representatives are having land in excess of the extent mentioned in S.2(25) of the KLR Act in their individual capacity. In this case itself if the original kudikidappukaran has applied for purchase of kudikidappu during his lifetime, the fact that his son was having at that time land in excess of the extent of land mentioned in S.2(25) of the KLR Act as owner on which he could erect a homestead would not have deprived him of his right to purchase his kudikidappu. Similarly if the deceased had during his lifetime purchased his kudikidappu, his legal representatives would not have been disentitled to get the purchased kudikidappu as part of the estate of the deceased. Similarly if the deceased had during his lifetime purchased his kudikidappu, his legal representatives would not have been disentitled to get the purchased kudikidappu as part of the estate of the deceased. If that he the legal position, there may not be any justification in holding that such a right which has devolved on them unconditionally, would be lost solely on the ground that one of the legal representatives has got land in his individual capacity in excess of the extent mentioned in S.2(25) on which he could creel a homestead or a hut. We find that in a very illuminating and instructive judgment which has not been reported Subramonian Poti, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Division Bench has explained the legal position tersely in'the following manner: "When a kudikidappukaran dies without moving an application for purchase the right to purchase survives in the legal representatives. When he has filed an application for purchase but that has not matured into an order, the right to prosecute the application naturally falls to the legal representative consequent on his inheriting the rights of the kudikidappukaran. If so, he must be taken to be seeking to prosecute the application for purchase not in his independent capacity as an individual but as the legal representative. Where there are more than one legal representative it will be anomalous to think that since the legal representatives could claim definite shares in the assets of the deceased kudikidappukaran each one of them will be entitled to purchase portions of the kudikidappu under S. 80A of the Act. The purchase is made on behalf of all the legal representatives. On the language of S.78 read with S.80A it is evident that the legal representative obtains the right to purchase and that right is that of the kudikidappukaran, on his death, inherited under law. If the kudikidappukaran was disqualified irrespective of their qualifications as to the extent of land held by them. If the kudikidappukaran was qualified to purchase the legal representatives can also seek such purchase on the basis of the right inherited irrespective of the extent of land held by them. If the kudikidappukaran was disqualified irrespective of their qualifications as to the extent of land held by them. If the kudikidappukaran was qualified to purchase the legal representatives can also seek such purchase on the basis of the right inherited irrespective of the extent of land held by them. In other words, the right exercised by them under S.80A of the Act by moving an application under S.80B of the Act or continuing an application filed for purchase by their predecessor in interest is in their capacity as legal representatives...." (See C.R.P.1778 of 1977) The learned judge has further dealt with the anomalous results which may follow if a contrary view is taken in the matter thus: "Take, for instance, the case where a deceased kudikidappukaran had three children, one of whom was possessed of considerable extent of land but the oilier two are of the same stiles as their lather possessing no other land than the kudikidappu. Could it be that the totality of the land possessed by one of the legal representatives is to be token into account to determine whether the purchase application should be allowed? Or should it be that if one of them is qualified to be a kudikidappukaran the purchase application has to be allowed? Or should it be that the purchase application should be allowed in part, allowing purchase of a portion of the kudikidappu? The very fact that the statute has not envisaged such a situation considered along with the fact that S.78 of the Act has made the right of a kudikidappukaran heritable would be sufficient pointer to r adopting the view we have expressed here." The view taken by Sukumaran, J. (as he then was) in C.R.P.No.886 of 1982 is also in tune with the above view. We find that Balasubramanyan, J. has also held in Devassy v. Thomas, (1993 (1) KLT 544) that non-occupation by some of the legal heirs of the deceased kudikidappukaran may not be a disqualification for others to purchase the kudikidappu. The decision of Fathima Beevi. (as she then was) in C.R.P.No. 732 of 1988 relied upon by the learned counsel may not have any application as it was a decision dealing with the case of disqualification of the original kudikidappukaran himself and not of the legal representatives. The decision of Fathima Beevi. (as she then was) in C.R.P.No. 732 of 1988 relied upon by the learned counsel may not have any application as it was a decision dealing with the case of disqualification of the original kudikidappukaran himself and not of the legal representatives. We are of the view that the law on the point has been correctly laid down by the Division Bench in C.R.P.No.1778 of 1977. The fact that adoption of the above legal position would in some cases enable the legal representatives who are owning or possessing land in excess of the extent mentioned in S.2(25) of the KLR Act on which he could erect a homestead or a hut, to purchase kudikidappu cannot be a justifiable reason to deny them the right which they got from their pre predecessor as part of his estate on the basis that the avowed object of the KLR Act is only to confer the benefit of purchase of kudikidappu only on landless persons. The legislature has not specifically prescribed any disqualification for the legal representatives in the matter of exercise of the right to purchase kudikidappu which they have inherited unconditionally under S.78 of the KLR Act. Any restriction imposed by Court will be contrary to the provision contained in S.78 which declared such right to be heritable unconditionally. We would accordingly hold that the first respondent in this case will not be disentitled to purchase the kudikidappu in her capacity as one of the legal representatives of her deceased lather who was admittedly a kudikidappukaran entitled to purchase his kudikidappu on the ground that her brother has got lands in excess of the extent specified in S.2(25) of the KLR Act on which he could erect a homestead or a hut. 7. In the light of the above view we have taken in the matter, the contention that originally the brother of the first respondent was also a co-applicant and the prayer for deletion of his name should not have been allowed as it was a malafide attempt on the part of the legal representatives to avoid certain adverse legal consequences loses much of its force and has only to be rejected as of no consequence. We do so. We do so. We may also note here that the right to purchase the kudikidappu is a right freely alienable to members of the family of a kudikidappukaran and in that view there may not be any legal bar in one of the legal representatives releasing or waiving or otherwise transferring his joint right of purchase in favour of the other co-heir. We would accordingly confirm the orders allowing purchase of kudikidappu concurrently passed by authorities below and dismiss the Revision with no order as to costs.