Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from proceedings under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 31 of 1958. The petitioner in this revision petition applied under S.9(1) and (3)and 22 of the Act for a declaration that a transaction of sale and lease evidenced by Exts. B-1 and B-2 was one of debt and for an order permitting him to pay the debt in 17 instalments under the provisions of the Act. The respondent¬vendee-objected, contending that the sale and lease were independent transactions and did not constitute a debt under the Act. He also objected to the mode of calculation of the amount adopted by the petitioner. The learned Munsiff held that the transaction was a debt liable to be repaid in instalments and that the amount was to be fixed, calculating interest at 5 per cent per annum from the date of the transaction and deducting from the amount so arrived at, the two payments towards rent. On appeal the learned District judge confirmed the finding that the transaction was a debt. However, he modified the order holding that the payments made were not to be re-opened, that the rent for the years 1130, 1131 and 1132 could not be allowed and that rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- was to be paid till the the date of Act 31 of 1958 and thereafter interest at 51/2% per annum was to be calculated on Rs. 3500/- which was the consideration for the sale deed. The debtor has preferred this Civil Revision Petition from the appellate order. 2. A preliminary objection was raised that the revision was incompetent in view of the provision in S.23A of the Act which provides: "An appeal shall lie against any order passed under sub-section (1) of S.8, sub S, (1) or sub-section (3) of S.9 and S.12,18, 22 & 23 to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court passing the order and the order passed in appeal shall be final: Provided that where the order is passed by a Revenue Court the appeal shall lie to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the Revenue Court is situate and such appeal shall be filed within sixty days of the date of the order appealed against". 3. 3. According to the respondent, a revision from the appellate decision is excluded by the provision that the appellate order shall be final. Reliance was placed by the respondent on the decision of this court in Kurian v. Chacko (1960 KLT.1248). It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the decision referred to above was under the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 16 of 1959, S.18 of which provides that the appellate decision "shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law". The argument was that the words " shall not be called in question in any court of law" were absent in S.23A of Act 31 of 1958 and that unlike the Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act the proceedings under Act 31 of 1958 were to be taken only in civil courts. 4. We do not think the omission in S.23A of the words "shall not be called in question in any court of law" makes any difference so long as the provision that the appellate decision shall be final is there. It is also not correct to say that all decisions under Act 31 of 1958 are made by civil courts. The Act makes provision for applications to Revenue Officers for cancellation, of revenue sales. The reasonable view seems to be that the intention was to exclude revision against appellate decisions under Act 31 of 1958. We are therefore of opinion that the principles laid down in Kurian v. Chacko (1960 KLT.1248) should apply to cases under Act 31 of 1958 and that the revision petition is incompetent. 5. The Civil Revision Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Dismissed.