B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

1. The matter has got a chequered career. One Narayana, had approached the Land Tribunal No. 1, Kasaragod through O.A. No. 5 of 1971 for enforcement of his so called right under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the KLR Act) by claiming that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of 1.04 acres of property in R.S. No. 112/1 of the Kasaragod Kasba Village. He claimed tenancy on the basis of Ext.A1 registered document No. 1498 of 1951 of the Sub Registry Office, Kasaragod. The Land Tribunal allowed the O.A. vide order dated 15.02.1978. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord challenged the said findings through an appeal filed before the Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur through A.A.425 of 1978. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and reversed the finding entered by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 26.5.1980. The defeated applicant in the O.A. had preferred CRP No. 2354 of 1980 before this Court challenging the findings entered by the Appellate Authority. This Court, vide order dated 21.10.1986 allowed the CRP and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal after setting aside the orders passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority.

2. Again, the Land Tribunal allowed the O.A. vide order dated 16.5.1991. Appeals were filed before the Appellate Authority as A.A. Nos. 124 of 1991 and 160 of 1991. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings entered by the Land Tribunal, through order dated 24.03.2008. The persons claiming under the landlord have come up in revision.

3. Heard. The learned Senior Counsel Shri R.D. Shenoy appearing for the petitioners has attacked the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority, mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that Ext.A1 has never conferred any right on the lessee to be a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the KLR Act. Secondly, the tenant was never entitled to cultivate the land within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the KLR Act, and therefore, he could never attain the status of a cultivating tenant. The learned Senior Counsel has further pointed out that the questions mainly revolve around the interpretation of Ext.A1 and therefore, it is necessarily a question of law. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8 has argued that the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority were bound by the remand order passed by this Court in CRP 2354 of 1980. The argument is that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of CRP 2354 of 1980 had entered a specific observation that real questions to be decided in the matter is whether the tenant could be considered as a cultivating tenant as on 01.01.1964 or not. Precisely, the argument is that the interpretation of Ext.A1 has no effect at all on account of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CRP 2354 of 1980. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that much waters might have flowed under the bridge from the date of execution of Ext.A1 till 01.01.1964 and it was for giving an opportunity to the tenant to prove that the tenant might have acquired the status of a cultivating tenant in the meantime, the remand order was passed by the Division Bench in the CRP.

4. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision in K. Bhagirathi G. Shenoy vs. K.P. Ballakuraya, AIR 1999 SC 2143 and argued that the Apex Court has interpreted a document which is similar in all particulars to Ext.A1 and found that the lease in that case was in respect of a building with the land appurtenant thereto and not vice-versa. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said interpretation of the Apex Court in respect of such a document which is pari materia to Ext.A1 is applicable in the case of Ext.A1 also and therefore, this Court cannot interpret Ext.A1 in a different way.

5. The main question to be considered is whether the document involved