The timing of redemption and the interpretation of welfare legislation, emphasizing the strict construction and preservation of benefits for tenants.

1. The judgment debtor is the revision petitioner. Respondent is the decree holder. The suit was one for redemption and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties with mesne profits. The suit was decreed on 15th day of July, 1980. The decree reads:

"That it is hereby declared that the amount due to the defendant on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated upto the 4th day of October, 1978 is the sum of Rs. 3000/

That the mortgage amount having been deposited in court on 20-6-1978.

That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed for redemption and recovery of possession and the defendant do surrender possession of the plaint schedule property on or before 14-9-1980 with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 450/- per year from 20-6-1978 till delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff.

And that the defendant do pay the plaintiff interest at the sate of 6 per cent per annum on the arrears of mesne profits"

2. Essential facts relevant for the disposal of the issues arising in the revision petition, lie in a narrow compass. During the pendency of the suit, the learned Munsiff referred the question, whether the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran, to the Land Tribunal under sub-s. 3 of S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal in its turn, found that the petitioner was not a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of S.2(25) of the KLR Act and consequently the suit was decreed as prayed for. Since the petitioner refused to deliver the property pursuant to the directions contained in the decree, the respondent-decree holder filed the petition, EP 13/84, for executing the decree. The petitioner filed EA 27/84 containing the prayer that the question whether the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran be referred to the Land Tribunal for a de novo enquiry under S.125(3) KLR Act. This application was opposed by the decree holder. His argument that the earlier order of the Land Tribunal that the petitioner judgment debtor was not a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of S.2(25) of the KLR Act on a reference to it under S.125(3) during the pendency of the suit, would operate as res judicata, was accepted by the executing court and as a result of it the above EA was dismissed by the order under challenge in the CRP.

3. A learned Single Judge of this court in Ratnamma v. Kamalamma Pillai (1983 KLT 227) in similar circumstances, has held that an earlier order would not operate as res judicata and as such the application for reference made by a judgment debtor in the execution proceeding, is sustainable. The correctness of the decision was doubted and accordingly the case was adjourned under S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act for being heard by a Division Bench by the learned judge who admitted the CRP. The reference order reads:

" Advocate Shri. R. D. Shenoi takes notice on behalf of the respondent. He challenges the correctness of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court reported in 1983 KLT 227. The learned judge in the said decision has held that an earlier order inter parties which has become final is not binding at the execution stage. The question involved requires consideration by a Division Bench. I thereforerefer this case to a Division Bench " That is how the matter is before us.

4. That the order of the Land Tribunal disposing of the reference under S.125(3) of the KLR Act made by the trial court during the pendency of the suit had found that the petitioner was not a kudikidappukaran within the meaning of S.2(25) of the KLR Act, is beyond dispute. The counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the said order will not operate as res judicata because the said order was made at a time when the decree for redemption had not been passed although the suit for redemption was pending consideration. Where a mortgagee with possession erects for his residence a homestead, or resides in a but already in existence, on the land which is the subject-matter of the mortgage, he sha