D. Raju, J.

1. The above second appeals were placed before us under the orders of the Honourable the Chief Justice pursuant to the order of reference dated 24. 1989 made by K. Venkataswami, J.,(as the learned Judge then was), in view of an apparent conflict said to have been noticed by the learned Judge on account of diametrically opposite views found to have been taken in two decisions reported in Kannammal v. G. Panchakshara chetty, 1988 (2) L.W. 11 rendered by E.J.Bellie, J. and in Ramanujam Kavirayar v. Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannathi Avargal, 1988 (2) L.W. 513 rendered by M. Srinivasan, J., (as the learned Judge then was). The relevant portion of the order of reference, which explained the need and justification for making the reference reads as follows: -

"Justice Srinivasan has taken the view that the Notification under Section 3 will not have the effect of extinguishing the right in the land, but it recognises the pre- existing right. This is what the learned Judge has said on this aspect: -

"...On the other hand, a reading of the provisions of the Act makes it clear that there is a recognition of the pre- existing rights. The proviso to S.3 (d) of the