ORDER : George Vadakkel, J. By an "ozhivadharam" of the year 1112 M.E. one Kochaiyappan who was the then karnavan of the marumakkathayam tarwad of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us gave possession of the disputed property, 91 cents of land in Survey No. 344/5 of Aryad South Village in Ambalapuzha Taluk to the mother of the revision petitioner, the 2nd applicant before the Land Tribunal (she is not a party before us in this revision petition). Kochaiyappan was in possession of the said land under an "Anubhavaudampadi" of the year 1098 to which all the members of the tarwad were parties. The executee under the ozhivadharam, viz., the 2nd applicant before the Land Tribunal, is described in that document as Kochaiyappan's daughter, but admittedly she is only an 'adopted' daughter, and is not a member of the tarwad. After the death of Kochaiyappan the members of the tarwad filed O.S. No. 67 of 1956 on the file of the Sub Court, Alleppey, for partition of the tarwad properties including the disputed property. As per the decree in that suit the said property was allotted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us who were counter petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 before the Land Tribunal. In execution of that decree the allottees took delivery of the land on 5- 10-1970. In respect of the building standing on the property the applicants before the Land Tribunal appear to have raised a contention that they are kudikidappukars. That contention was overruled by the execution court and the execution court's decision was confirmed on appeal in A S No. 323 of 1971. Ultimately the building was also taken delivery of on 5-4-1973. Pending the execution proceedings and the enquiry into the claim put forward by the applicants that they are kudikidappukars, in 1970, after the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (Act I of 1964) (for short the Act) was amended by Act 35 of 1969 they also put in a petition under S.72B of that Act for. assignment of the right, title and interest of the allottees under the partition - decree which according to them had vested in the Government under S.72 of that Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969. assignment of the right, title and interest of the allottees under the partition - decree which according to them had vested in the Government under S.72 of that Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969. According to the applicants, before the Land Tribunal the ozhivadharam earlier mentioned purports to be a lease deed granted by a person not competent to lease the land and is a registered document as envisaged by S.7B of the Act. The short question on these facts is as to whether the ozhivadharam is such a document as claimed by the applicants. The Land Tribunal held that it is so, but the appellate authority held that that document is only a gift deed by Kochaiyappan in respect of what all rights he had over that property. 2. Under the ozhivadharam Kochaiyappan gave possession of the property to the 2nd applicant stating that he has decided to relinquish his possession of the property to her during his lifetime itself in lieu of his love and affection towards her: x x x xxx 3. There can be no doubt that the portion above extracted can in law operate only as a gift and that it cannot operate as a lease. The appellate authority is therefore right in holding that the ozhivadharam does not evince a lease. Consequently, therefore, the applicants before the Land Tribunal are not entitled to invoke S.7B of the Act and raise the contention that they are deemed tenants or to rely on S.72 and apply under S.72B for assignment of the right, title and interest of the allottees, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us. 4. An argument was raised before the appellate authority that no appeal is maintainable against the Land Tribunal's order in so far as that order is a preliminary order under R.9 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter mentioned as the Rules). The appellate authority held that the appeal is maintainable. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently canvassed the correctness of that decision. 5. Under S.72 of the Act, on a date to be notified by the Government in that behalf in the Gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries. 5. Under S.72 of the Act, on a date to be notified by the Government in that behalf in the Gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries. S.72F(1) provides that immediately after the vesting of the right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries as provided for in S.72, or where an application under S.72B or S.72BB has been received by the Land Tribunal, that Tribunal shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in the prescribed form. S.72B enables, as already noticed, the tenant to seek assignment of the right, title and interest in the holding that are vested in the Government under S.72. The next relevant provision to be noticed is S.72F(5). That sub-section directs the Land Tribunal to pass an order specifying the matters mentioned as (a) to (i) in that sub-section. The last mentioned clause, viz., clause (i) reads: "(i) such other particulars as may be prescribed." The order contemplated by sub-s.(5) is to be passed by the Tribunal after considering the claims and objections received pursuant to the notice issued under S.72F(1) and the individual notice served under sub-s.(2) thereof, as also the advice received from the village committee as envisaged by sub-s.(3A) and (3B) of S.72F. The objectors and the claimants are also entitled to be heard if they appear on the notified date. 6. R.9 provides that the Land Tribunal shall decide the question as to whether the holding in respect of which notice has been issued under S.72F(1) or (2) is or is not a holding held by any cultivating tenant as also the question as to whether the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries in respect of such holding have or have not vested in the Government as a preliminary point. This decision is to be recorded with reasons therefor. Sub-rule (2) of R.9 provides that where the decision under sub-r.(1) is that such land is not held by any cultivating tenant or that such right, title and interest have not vested in the Government, the Land Tribunal shall forthwith reject the application referred to in R.4 (an application for assignment under S.72B). Sub-rule (2) of R.9 provides that where the decision under sub-r.(1) is that such land is not held by any cultivating tenant or that such right, title and interest have not vested in the Government, the Land Tribunal shall forthwith reject the application referred to in R.4 (an application for assignment under S.72B). That sub-rule further says that such an order shall be deemed to be an order under S.72F for all purposes of the Act. Under R.10 of the Rules, where there is no dispute as contemplated in R.9(1) and where there is dispute when such dispute has been resolved in favour of the person claiming to be the tenant, the Land Tribunal shall 'after perusal and consideration of the application, if any, referred to in R.4, the information referred to in R.5, the written statement, if any filed by the parties, other documentary evidence if any, produced and the report, if any, of the officer appointed under S.105A and after such further inquiries as it may deem necessary, prepare before it passes an order under sub-s.(5) of S.72F preliminary findings in Form G without recording the reasons for such findings'. 7. The contention raised before us is that an order under sub-r.(2) of R.9 rejecting an application would be an order under S.72F, but an order under R.9(1) which is only a finding on a preliminary point would not be an order under S.72F so as to attract S". 102 under which an order under S.72F is made appealable. 8. Under S.72F(5)(i) earlier noticed the Land Tribunal has to pass an order specifying such other particulars as are prescribed. Under S.2(46) the word "prescribed" means "prescribed by rules made under this Act". The Rules in question have been framed under the Act and by virtue of powers conferred by S.129 of the Act. The result is that an order passed specifying the particulars that are prescribed by the Rules will be an order coming under S.72F(5)(i). In this view an order deciding the preliminary point under R.9(1) is also an order passed under S.72F in so far as it is an order specifying the particulars prescribed by R.9. The result is: S.102 of the Act is attracted to such an order and the order is appealable. In this view an order deciding the preliminary point under R.9(1) is also an order passed under S.72F in so far as it is an order specifying the particulars prescribed by R.9. The result is: S.102 of the Act is attracted to such an order and the order is appealable. This is all the more borne out by the fact that under R.9(1) the Land Tribunal has not only to decide the question as a preliminary point, but also has to 'record its decision thereon with reasons for such decision'. 9. R.10 is not happily worded. Under that rule even in respect of matters coming under R.9(1) and where a decision is made thereunder, the Tribunal is required to prepare before it passes 'an order under sub-s.(5) of S.72F preliminary findings in Form G without recording the reasons for such findings'. In so far as a decision under R.9(1) is to be supported with the reasons for such decision what R.10 requires appears to be a prima facie decision by the Land Tribunal even before it decides the question as contemplated by R.9. On a literal interpretation of R.10, the 'preliminary finding in Form G without recording reasons for such findings' is to be prepared after the Land Tribunal decides the preliminary point mentioned in R.9 recording the reasons therefor. Whatever that be, in so far as under S.72F(5)(i) the Land Tribunal has to pass an order specifying 'such other particulars as may be prescribed', an order specifying the particulars prescribed by R.9 would be an order, as already pointed out, under S.72F, and, would therefore, be appealable under S.102 of the Act. 10. The decision in Alavi v. Appellate Authority, Land Reforms ( 1972 KLT 648 ) has no bearing on the question discussed above. Therein Isaac J. held that no appeal lies against an order of injunction issued by the Land Tribunal. The learned Judge pointed out that an interlocutory order passed in proceedings under S.72F would not be an order under S.72F itself so as to attract S.102. It was pointed out therein that an injunction order is passed under R.92 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) R.1970. We do not think that that decision in any way affects the conclusion we have reached above. 11. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.