1. This is an appeal by the 2nd defendant from a decree passed by a learned single judge in second appeal in a suit for redemption of a melotti and kuzhikanam evidenced by Ext, PI.

2. Since the 2nd defendant among other things contended in the appeal that he is a deemed tenant coming within the ambit of S.4A of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 and as its constitutional validity was challenged by the plaintiff, the case was referred to a Bench of three judges. When the case was argued before that Bench, the plaintiff contended that the tenure of the land involved in the case is pandarapattom in the Travancore area of the State and so S.4A in its application to that land cannot have the protection of Art.31A of the Constitution in view of the decision of a Bench of three judges in Govindaru Nambooripad. State 1962 KLT 913. As considerable doubt was entertained on the question whether pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the State is 'estate' within the meaning of Art.31A (2) (a) that question was referred to a Bench of five judges. That Bench answered the question by saying that pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the State is 'estate' within the