S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. Defendants 2, 3 and 5 to 7 in a suit for redemption are the appellants. Their plea of tenancy under the Land Reforms Act was negatived without reference to the Land Tribunal. Alternative claim of kudikidappu right was directed to be considered in execution. Value of improvements was assessed and decree for redemption was passed. In appeal, they only challenged the quantum of improvements. Confirming the finding on redeemability, the decree was set aside and the case remanded solely for the purpose of passing a fresh decree after reassessing improvements. Improvements were reassessed and a fresh preliminary decree was passed. In A. S. No. 151 of 1983, filed against that decree, the challenge was only that kudikidappu was not protected and improvements were not property assessed. Second appeal is against the dismissal of that appeal.

2. In this second appeal, the grounds taken are three fold They are :

(a) The decree for redemption without referring the claim of tenancy and kudikidappu to the. Land Tribunal is illegal and void;

(b) Rejection of kudikidappu right by the appellate court is not justified; and

(c) Value of improvements assessed is not proper. Kud