The jurisdiction of the trial court or executing court is ousted by S.125 of the Act, but the jurisdiction of the appellate or revisional court is not affected. The power of the appellate court and revisional court to decide questions regarding the right of a kudikidappukaran is not restricted by S.125(3) of the Act.

Revision petitioners are judgment-debtors 12 and 14 to 20 who are the legal representatives of the 3rd judgment-debtor. The 13th judgment-debtor who was also a legal representative of the 3rd judgment-debtor released his right in favour of the decree-holder. The suit was for redemption of a mortgage. Preliminary decree was passed on 19-8-1970 and a final decree application was filed on 4-2-77. The final decree was actuary passed on 18-9-79 and the redemption price was deposited on 22-9-1971). It is also to be noted that this suit is instituted in 1968, i.e. before 1970.

2. After the final decree was passed, the decree-holder filed E.P.No. 55 of 1980 for executing the decree and for recovery of possession of the property. The 3rd judgment-debtor died during the pendency of the execution proceedings and his legal representatives, the revision petitioners. filed an objection in execution raising two contentions: i) that they are tenants entitled to fixity of tenure as the mortgage sought to be redeemed is an ottikuzhikanam coming under S.2(39A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the act); and ii) that under Explanation IV to S.2(25) they are kudikidappukars in respect of the property and they are entitled to fixity of tenure. The execution court overruled both the objections and the revision is against the above order.

3. The first question as to whether the petitioners arc ottikuzhikanamdars coming under S.2(39 a) of the Act cannot be raised by the judgment-debtors in execution as the very same question was agitated in the final decree proceedings and in the final judgment it was held that the mortgage in question is not an ottikuzhikanam thereby denying the fixity of tenure of the judgment-debtors. They are concluded by the final judgment and the matter cannot be re-agitated in execution. In that view of the matter, I confirm the finding of the execution court that the judgment-debtors are not entitled to fixity of tenure on the ground that they are ottikuzhikanamdars coming under S.2(39A) of the Land Reforms Act.

4. Coming to the second question, the main ground raised by counsel for the petitioners is that under S.125 of the Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction in any matter arising after 1-1-1970 to decide a question regarding the right of a tenant or a kudikidappukaran. Though the suit was instituted in 1968, the execution petition was filed only in 1980 and he relied on the 'Full Bench decision of this Court in George v. Vareed (1978 KLT 691) for the position that even in a suit though instituted before 1970, if the execution application is after 1-1-1970, the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted and the issue regarding the right of a kudikidappukaran has to be referred to the Land Tribunal. He also relied on a decision of Five judges of this Court in 1979 KLT 766 (Kesava Bhat v. Subraya Bhat) for the position that any finding by a civil court on such questions without reference to the Land Tribunal is without jurisdiction and thereby a nullity. On the basis of these two decisions counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the order of the execution court holding that the judgment-debtors are not kudikidappukars is without jurisdiction and that the order will have to be set a side and the matter referred to the Land Tribunal.

5. It is no doubt true that in the Full Bench decision reported in 1978 KLT 691 it was held that if the execution petition was filed after 1-1-1970, even in a suit instituted prior to that date if any question arises as to the right of a tenant or a kudikidappukaran, the matter will have to be referred. So also, in 1979 KLT 766 it was held that such a decision by a civil court without reference to the Land Tribunal is a nullity. But it is to be noted that such a point of jurisdiction of the execution court was not raised before that court. Secondly, the ouster of jurisdiction under S.125 of the Act is only that of the trial court; it does not affect the jurisdictio