Paripooraan, J.

The above appeal comes up before the Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 12-12-1989. The Division Bench felt that the decision in Parameswaran Thampi v. Pediyan Thomas (1984 KLT 397), relied on by the respondents in the appeal (Plaintiffs in the suit) in support of the decrees of that courts below requires reconsideration. Since the decision in Parameswaran Thampi's case (1984 KLT 397) is one rendered by a Bench of this Court, the matter is referred for consideration by a Full Bench.

2, the short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: -

Defendants 2 to 6 in O.S.No.172/73, Munsiff s Court, Ponnani are the appellants in this second appeal. The plain tiffs in the suit are the respondents herein. The suit was originally laid against defendants 1 to 2 only. Pending the suit the first defendant died. His legal heirs were impleaded. Second defendant was recorded as one of the legal heirs of the first defendant. Defendants 3 to 6 were impleaded as the legal heirs of the first defendant on 13-8-1976. The suit was one for redemption of Ext.A1 mortgage dated 14-3-1956. There was also a prayer for recovery of possession of the property on the basis of title. There are two items in the suit. Item No.1 consists of three thanks. ItemNo.2 consists of one thank. Item No.1 (thank No.l) was given on possessory mortgage. Item No.1 (thank No.2 and 3) and item No.2 were given on simple mortgage. It was alleged that in 1965 the first defendant surrendered possession of item No.1 (item No.1) orally to the plaintiffs for cultivation. The first defendant also accepted possession of thaks No.2 and 3 in item No.1 and item No.2 orally in exchange. The second defendant is the son of the first-defendant. He pleaded that item No.1 (thak No.2 and 3) and item No.2 were held by him on an oral lease granted in 1135 ME. (1959). Thus the second defendant claimed tenancy over item No.1 (Ihaks 2 and 3) and item No.1 the plaintiffs filed O.P.No. 5 of 1969 and deposited the mortgage amount. The suit was filed on 29-11-1973 for redemption, and for recovery of possession on the basis of title. Since the plea of tenancy was raised, the civil court referred the question of tenancy to the appropriate Land Tribunal on 9-7-1974. While the matter was pending there, the first defendant died. His legal heirs were brought on record on 13-8-1976. The Land Tribunal answered the reference on 31-12-1976, and forwarded the same to the civil court holding that the second defendant is not a tenant. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 31-8-1977. The second defendant appealed before the Sub Court, Tirur on 30-9-1977 (A.S. No.114 of 1977). While the matter was pending before the Land Tribunal on a reference made by the civil court (0.A-No. 1234 of 1974), the second defendant assigned his rights to the 6th defendant and one Ummeron 18-10-1975. The 6th defendant and the said Ummer filed an application under section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act against the jenmi Devaswom and the intermediaries (Plaintiffs in 0.S. No. 172 of 1973) for purchase of the rights, title and interest in respect of the holding. This is 0.A. No. 17732 of 1976 before the Special Tahsildar (LIZ), Malappuram. It was filed on 22-10-1975. The said O.A. was disposed of on 17-10-1977 holding that the applicants (2nd defendant and Ummer) are cultivating tenants entitled to the assignment in respect of the holding. The application was allowed. It was ordered that the right, title and interest of the landowner and intermediary in respect of the above holding be assigned in favour of the applicants free from all encumbrances. The plaintiffs in 0.S. No. 172/73 pleaded before the Land Tribunal (Munsiff), Kozhikode that in view of the order passed in O.A. No. 1234 of 1974 the applicants in 0.A. No. 3 7732 of 1976 have no fixity of tenure. Since the copy of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in 0.A. No. 1234 of 1974 was not