K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

The order in E.P. 1103 of 1991 in O.S.179 of 1984 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

2. In that E.P. filed for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property on redemption of the mortgage, judgment debtors 2 and 3 contended that they are entitled to kudikidappu right in respect of the decree schedule property. The Executing Court referred the question of kudikidappu to the Land Tribunal for finding under S.125(3) of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 as amended. The Land Tribunal, by order dated 9.8,99 in R.C. 26 of 1998 held that Judgment Debtors 2 and 3 are not entitled to kudikidappu right in respect of the decree schedule property.

3. The Execution Court, accepted the finding of the Land Tribunal and ordered delivery of the property to the petitioner/ decree holder. Hence the judgment debtors 2 and 3 have preferred this revision petition before this court challenging that order.

4. The Land Tribunal found that the mortgage sought to be redeemed was after the commencement of the Act 1 of 1964 and the revision petitioners were not in possession of the land and the building as on 1,1.1970 so as to entitle them to get the benefits under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and accordingly negatived the contention regarding kudikidappu raised by them.

5. The finding of the Land Tribunal that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim kudikidappu in respect of the plaint schedule property since they came into possession of the property only subsequent to 1.1.70, the date of commencement of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 as amended by the Kerala Act 35 of 1969 and therefore they are not entitled to claim kudikidappu right in respect of the property is absolutely illegal and unsustainable. It has been authoritatively laid down by this Court that claim of kudikidappu is not restricted to persons who came into possession of the property prior to 1.1.1970 and persons who came into possession of the property subsequent to 1.1.70 are also entitled to claim kudikidappu right under S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as amended.

6. In the decision reported in Mary Yohannan v. Sreekumaran Nair (1991 (2) KLT 751), a Full Bench of this Court has observed as follows:

"for the aforesaid reasons, we hold that even though the petitioner became a kudikidappukaran during 1978-79 and became entitled to purchase the kudikidappu under S.80A read with S. SOB subsequent to 1978 and even though the petitioner was not a kudikidappukaran by 1.1.1970 when the Act 35 of 1969 was introduced, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the right to purchase conferred by the said sections. The said right is not restricted to persons who acquired the status of kudikidappukaran before 1.1.1970".

7. In the decision reported in Maniyan v. Ramachandran, (1999 (3) KLT 86), a Division Bench of this Court considered on reference of the question whether kudikidappu as defined in S.2(25) of the KLR Act 1963 can come into existence after 1.1.1970. The Division Bench of this Court, overruled the decision of a Single Bench of this Court reported in Mohamed v. Abdulla (1997 (1) KLT 410), to the effect that no kudikidappu can come into existence after 1.1.1970 following the above decision of the Full Bench reported in 1991 (2) KLT 751 and observed as follows:

"We are unable to agree with the learned judge that the definition under S.2(25) has to be understood in such a manner that permission granted must be as on 1.1.1970. We do not find any reason to doubt the correctness of the two Bench decisions and the Full Bench as observed by the learned Single Judge. According to us, no fresh consideration is necessary on this issue".

Therefore it is patent that the order passed by the Land Tribunal in the reference made by the Executing Court to the effect that the revision petitioners are not entitled to claim kudikidappu right under S.2(25) of the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 as amended since the