The main legal point established in the judgment is the appealability of orders under S.13B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, emphasizing the right conferred by the law, the adjudication of disputes, and the resolution of ambiguity in favor of the right to an appeal.

1. A question of considerable importance arises in this second appeal. It relates to the application of S.13B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Before referring to the facts of the case, I feel it is apposite to quote S.13 B of the Act.

"13B. Restoration of the possession of certain holdings sold for arrears of rent.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, where any holding has been sold in execution of any decree for arrears of rent, and the tenant has been dispossessed of the holding after the 1st day of April, 1964 and before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, such sale shall stand set aside and such tenant shall be entitled to restoration of possession of the holding, subject to the provisions of this section:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in any case where the holding has been sold to a bona fide purchaser for consideration after the date of such dispossession and before the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 1968 in the Gazette.

(2) Any person entitled to restoration of possession of his holding under sub-s. (1) may, within a period of six months from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, deposit the purchase money together with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum in the court and apply to the court for setting aside the sale and for restoration of possession of his holding.

(3) The court shall, if satisfied after such summary enquiry as the court deems fit, set aside the sale and restore the applicant to possession of his holding.

(4) The court may also order the applicant to deposit in court such amount as may be specified by the court towards costs of the decree-holder or the auction purchaser and the value of improvements, if any. effected on the holding after the sale."

2. A landlord jenmi instituted a suit against one Pathumma for arrears of rent for three years, as O. S.632 of 1961, in the Munsiff's Court, Tirur. The suit was decreed. In execution of the decree, the tenancy right of Pathumma was sold in court auction on 14-6-1965. The decree holder himself purchased the property in auction. The same was confirmed. The respondent herein took delivery of the property on 25-8-1965. The original tenant-Pathumma died. One Ayidru was the legal heir of the leasehold interest. Ayidru sold his interest to one Moideen under Ext. B1. Moideen assigned his right in the property to Mohammed-one of the children of Ayidru. This was under Ext. B2 dated 21-4-1964. Ayidru filed an application under S.13B of the Act as E. A. No. 646 of 1970 in E. P. No. 680 of 1963 in O. S.632 of 1961. Ayidru died in 1975 and the legal representatives were impleaded.

3. Finding that on the facts S.13B of the Act is applicable, the Munsiff Court allowed the application E. A. 646 of 1970 and directed restoration of possession of the holding. The respondent herein filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirur. The appellate court did not agree with the Munsiff Court and allowed the appeal. Now, the legal representatives of Ayidru appeal.

4. The question that is set for consideration before the appellate court as well as before this court is that no appeal would lie against the order passed in E. A. 646/70. The Act does not provide for an appeal from orders passed on applications filed under S.13B of the Act. So, the court has to consider whether an appeal would lie under the Code of Civil Procedure since the matter has been decided by a civil court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order has been passed by the execution court and so, no appeal lies from such orders. Counsel submits that the order can never be treated as a decree and as such no appeal under the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is possible.

6. The counsel on both sides referred