The main legal point established in the judgment is that S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act applies to the land in question, including non-agricultural land, and that the Act, being included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, is immune from challenge on the ground of violating Art.14, 19, 31, and 31A.

1. Second Appeal 1021 is by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1081 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum, and Second Appeal 1022 is by the same person who was the 4th defendant in O.S. No. 187 of 1965 of the same Munsiff's court. The two suits, O.S No. 187 of 1965 and O.S. No. 1081 of 1966, were suits for redumption of parts of the property scheduled as A schedule property in O.S. 1081 of 1966 which was a suit for redumption of the B schedule item in the plaint which is only a part of the property described in the A schedule therein. The other suit, O.S. 187 of 1965, was for redumption of another part of the A schedule property in O.S. 1081. The property in O.S. 187 of 1965 was in the possession of the first defendant in that suit. The 4th defendant therein, the appellant in S.A.1022, was only a proforma party in that suit. The suits were tried together and preliminary decrees for redumption of the properties in the two suits were passed in the cases. Appeals were taken and it was con tended before the appellate court that by virtue of S.4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act 1 of 1964 after its amendment by Act 35 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the mortgagees will have to be deemed tenants and so were entitled to fixity of tenure and that therefore the suits should have been dismissed. The appellate court dealt with the matter in the last paragraph of its judgment and the relevant part of that paragraph reads thus:

"A commission was taken out to ascertain the nature of the property. From the report and the evidence tendered by the commissioner when examined in court, it is clear that the plot is in the heart of the Trivandrum City very near the Cotton Hill High School. It is in the heart of the Trivandrum City. It is now well settled that properties within the Municipal and Corporation areas, which are not agricultural, are not affected by Act 1/64 as amended up to date. It would also seem that this gets the exemption under S.3 of the Act 1/64 as it is clearly the house site with the appurtenant land. Ext. P1 makes it clear that there are houses in the property. There were 2 or 3 structurers and the well. The only trees then available in the 45 cents of land were 2 coconut trees, 5 jack trees, 2 mango trees and 2 tamarind trees. Considering the whole of the document and the attendant circumstances it is clear that this is not. an agricultural land. Therefore, Act 1/64 cannot apply."

2. The main contention raised by counsel on behalf of the appellant is that it is unnecessary that the land should be agricultural land in order that the Act may apply to the land. Even for getting the protection of Art.31-A of the Constitution, it was submitted that only two conditions need be satisfied. (1) that the legislation must be a measure of agrarian reform, and (2), that it must relate to an estate as defined in Art.31-A. Before we proceed to deal with this aspect we shall extract S.4A as well as the exemption section, S.3(1) (ii) on which reliance was placed by the plaintiffs-respondents in support of the contention that the Act would not apply to the cases.

"4A. Certain mortgagees and lessees of mortgagees to be deemed tenants. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, a mortgagee with possession of land, other than land principally planted with rubber, coffee, tea or cardamom, or the lessee of a mortgagee of such land shall be deemed to be a tenant if (a) the mortgagee or lessee was holding the land comprised in the mortgage for a continuous period of not less than fifty years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969; or

(b) the mortgagee or lessee has constructed a building for his own residence in the land comprised in the mortgage and he was occupying such building for such purpose for a continuous period of not less than twenty years immediately preceding