Jagamadha Rao, C.J.

In the reference to the Full Bench, the point is regarding the interpretation of Explanation to S.2(33B) and S.80A(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the Act'.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was holding 20 cents of land and a building under a possessory mortgage. The first respondent-landowner obtained a decree for redemption in O.S.170 of 1974 in the Court of the District Munsiff, Trivandrum by judgment dated 6-3-1976. The mortgage was by an Ottikuzhikanam deed dated 5-10-1963 executed by the respondent's mother and others in favour of the petitioner. After the decree for redemption was obtained as stated above, the decree-holder filed EP 1041 of 1978 for redemption. At that stage, the petitioner claimed kudikidappu right by virtue of the provisions of Explanation IV to S.2(25) of the Act. The execution court ordered not to dispossess the petitioner from the schedule building till the kudikidappu right of the petitioner was determined. The petitioner then filed OA 113 of 1979 before the Land Tribunal, Trivandrum under S.80B of the Act as amended by the Act 35 of 1969 claiming that she was entitled to