The main legal point established is that an order of remand is not considered a final order within the meaning of S.103 of the Act, as it does not put an end to the litigation between the parties.

1. A preliminary objection against the maintainability of the revision has been raised by the counsel appearing for the first respondent in this revision filed by the second respondent in O. A. No. 4440 of 1976. The above application under S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by the first respondent and another for assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlords and the intermediaries in 3.82 acres of dry land comprised in R. S.236/1 and 3.46 acres of wet land comprised in R. S.237/1 in Edappal amsom. The 1st respondent in the application was the ultimate jenmi and the 2nd respondent, who is the revision-petitioner herein was impleaded as an intermediary. This application was contested by the revision-petitioner. The Land Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants are not entitled to protection under S.4A of the Act.

2. This order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by the first respondent herein before the Appellate Authority (L.R.) Kozhikode in A. A. 329 of 1981. As the second applicant in O. A. 4440 of 1976 Devaki died; the appeal was filed by the first respondent herein who alone is said to be her legal heir. The Appellate Authority finding that the transaction evidenced in the mortgage clearly fell under S.6B of Act 1 of 1964, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal for determination of the purchase price etc.

3. It is this order that is challenged in this revision. At the very outset of the hearing, the counsel appearing for the first respondent raised a preliminary point that the revision is not maintainable, as the order sought to be revised is not a final order coming within the meaning of S.103 of the Act. Reliance was placed by the counsel on three Division Bench rulings of this Court. 1) Joseph v. Velayudhan Pillai (1976 KLT. 870), 2) Kothamma v. Kunjihetti (1973 KLT. 390) and an unreported case in CRP. Nos. 28 and 29 of 1967. Counsel also relied on the decisions Meethale Peedikayil Pokken v. Chethiyam Veettil Pokkan (1981 KLN. Case No. 34) and in Ouseph v. State of Kerala & others (1977 KLN. Case No. 229).

4. Strongly relying on the Division Bench rulings of this Court, the counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that these decisions squarely apply to the facts of this case, that the Appellate Authority has not fully adjudicated upon the rights of the parties in the case, that there is a clear direction to fix the purchase price which the tenant is liable to pay and therefore this order of remand cannot in any way be treated as a final order.

5. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on the other hand contended that the correctness of the decision in Joseph v. Velayudhan Pillai (1976 KLT. 870) has been doubted by Viswanatha Iyer, J in Mahadeva Iyer & others v. Bhagavathy Ammal (1979 KLT. 910) and also in CRP. No. 1222 of 1975 by another learned judge and therefore the decision reported in Joseph v. Velayudhan Pillai (1976 KLT. 870) requires reconsideration and the case may therefore be referred to a Full Bench for an authoritative-pronouncement on the point. The counsel also relied on Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Shiv Rattan Dev (AIR. 1955 SC. 576), Venkayya v. P. Venkatarama Rao (AIR. 1956 AP. 126) and Asbestos Cement Ltd. v. Sawarkar (AIR. 1971 SC. 100). S.103(1) of the Act reads:

"103. Revision by High Court (1) Any person aggrieved by -

(i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal or;

(ii) any final order passed by the Land Board under this Act or

(iii) any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act may, within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law."

Article 133(1) of the Constitu