Judgment :- 1. Numerous problems arise with repeal of Statutes and the problem here which is one such is about the scope of the provision in S.132(1) (a) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, allowing the continuance of certain suits after repeal of certain enactments under which those suits had been stayed. 2. The enactments repealed by S.132(1)(a) are the Cochin Proclamations XVI of 1122 and VI of 1124, and the Kerala Acts, the Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 18 of 1962, and the Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 7 of 1963. By the Cochin Proclamations among other matters suits for eviction of verumpattomdars to whom the proclamations applied were stayed. By the Agrarian Relations Act, 4 of 1961, a comprehensive legislation relating to Agrarian Reforms applicable to the whole State was enacted. But that Act was held to be invalid so far as certain parts of the State were concerned. It was then that first, Act 18 of 1962 as applicable to the Taluks of Hosdrug and Kasaragod and then Act 7 of 1963 as applicable to the whole State were passed and by those enactments among other matters suits for eviction of tenants and kudikidappukars were stayed. 3. Again a comprehensive legislation relating to land reforms applicable to the whole State, the Kerala Land Reforms Act,1 of 1964, was enacted. By S.132(1)(a) of that Act Cochin Proclamations XVI of 1122 and VI of 1124 and Kerala Acts, 18 of 1962 and 7 of 1963, and by S.132(4) Kerala Act 4 of 1961 were repealed. After repealing Cochin Proclamations XVI of 1122 and VI of 1124 and Kerala Acts 18 of 1962 and 7 of 1963 S.132(1) provided that pending suits hit by those enactments may be disposed of according to the provisions of Act 1 of 1964 and after repealing Act 4 of 1961 S.132 (4) provided that the repeal of Act 4 of 1961 would not affect certain proceedings started under and rights conferred by that Act and enumerated in S.132 (4) (ii) such proceedings and rights. After repealing Act 4 of 1961 and saying that the repeal would not affect matters specified in S.132 (4) (ii), to make it clear beyond any doubt that no other right or liability under Act 4 of 1961 would survive the repeal, S.132 (4) (iii) provided that as regards all other rights conferred by and liabilities imposed by Act 4 of 1961 one had to proceed as if Act 4 of 1961 had not been enacted at all. 4. The section so far as is relevant for the present purpose reads: "132 (1) (a). The Proclamation XVI of 1122 (Cochin), dated the 14th February, 1947, the Proclamation VI of 1124 (Cochin), dated the 12th January, 1949, the Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962 and the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1963, are hereby repealed, and all suits, appeals, revisions, reviews and proceedings in execution of decrees stayed by the said enactments may be disposed of , by the courts in which they were pending at the commencement of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. X X X X (4)(i) The Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 is hereby repealed; (ii) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), (a) all applications for determination of fair rent filed or purported to have been filed under the said Act in which no order determining the fair rent had been passed by the Land Tribunal, shall be deemed to have been filed under this Act and shall be disposed of according to the provisions of this Act; (b) where the Land Tribunal constituted or purported to have been constituted under the said Act had passed an order determining the fair rent in respect of a holding, but an appeal or application for revision in respect of such order was pending before the appellate or revising authority at the time when the said Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or the High Court, or the proceedings under the said Act were stayed under the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Ordinance, 1962, as the case may be, in its or their application to the land comprised in the holding, such appellate or revising authority shall reopen the matter and dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and, for that purpose, shall have all the powers of the appellate or revising authority, as the case may be, under this Act; (c) Where the Land Tribunal constituted or purported to have been constituted under the said Act had passed an order determining the fair rent in respect of a holding, but the time for preferring appeal or revision in respect of such order had not expired at the time when the said Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or the High Court, or the proceedings under the said Act were stayed under the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Ordinance, 1962, as the case may be, in its or their application to the land comprised in the holding, any party aggrieved by the order of the land Tribunal may, within three months from the commencement of this Act, prefer an appeal or an application for revision against such order before the appellate or revising authority under this Act, and thereupon such authority shall re-open the matter and dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (d) in cases where orders determining fair rent have been passed or purported to have been passed under the said Act and such orders had become final, such orders shall be deemed to have been passed under this Act for purposes of payment of fair rent; (e) notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the fair rent referred to in sub-clause (d) shall be the rent payable by the cultivating tenant, but such fair rent shall not be taken as the basis for the determination of the purchase price under S.55, and the fair rent for the determination of such purchase price shall be the fair rent determined under this Act. (iii) Subject to the provisions of clause (ii), the said Act or the rules, notifications or orders made or issued thereunder shall not be deemed to have conferred any right or imposed any liability on any person, as if the said Act had not been enacted." 5. The question here is whether suits started under Act 4 of 1961 can be allowed to continue even after the repeal of that Act because S.132 (1) (a) of Act 1 of 1964 which deals with repeal of different enactments says that the suits previously hit by the stay provided in those enactments may be proceeded with and disposed of according to the provisions of Act 1 of 1964. The following considerations persuade me to hold that the answer has to be in the negative. 6. First, unlike clause (4) of S.132 where there is nothing to indicate that it is subject to the provisions of clause (1) of that section there is indication in clause (1) that it is subject to the provisions of clause (4) because what is stated in clause (1) is that after the lifting of the stay suits coming under clause (1) may be disposed of according to the provisions of Act 1 of 1964. 7. Secondly, the general rule that repeal of an enactment would not affect continuance of pending proceedings under it has no application when different intention appears. The provisions in sub clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (4) expressly show that proceedings other than those mentioned in sub clause (ii) were not intended to be continued after the repeal. 8. Thirdly, while the provision in clause (1) that after the lifting of stay all suits covered by that clause may be proceeded with, is general, the provision in clause (4) that the repeal of Act 4 of 1961, is total except in respect of the matters specified in sub clause (ii) and that in respect of matters not covered by that sub clause one had to proceed on the basis that Act 4 of 1961 did not exist at ail is particular and in cases of conflict general provisions have to give way to particular provisions. 9. 9. Fourthly, in the order of arrangement in the statute clause (4) is later compared to clause (1) and if there is repugnance between the two clauses it is the later in the order of position or arrangement that has to prevail. That is so because in cases of inconsistencies even if it be in the same section it is the later legislative will which must prevail and override the earlier. 10. Fifthly, as it is clause (4) and not clause (1) that deals with the repeal of Act 4 of 1961, it is to clause (4) that one should look to know the nature and scope of the repeal. All the enactments repealed by clauses (1) and (4), except Act 4 of 1961 which was an attempt at comprehensive agrarian reforms, were only temporary in nature as they were enacted only to give temporary reliefs to tenants and kudikidappukars pending comprehensive legislation relating to land reforms. While the temporary enactments are exclusively dealt with in clause (1) the Act attempting at comprehensive land reforms is exclusively dealt with in clause (4) of S.132. That being the arrangement of the provisions in the section it is to clause (4) and not to clause (1) that one has to look to find what all proceedings started under Act 4 of 1961 were intended to be continued and, what all rights conferred and what all liabilities imposed by that Act were intended to survive even after the repeal of that Act. 11. Sixthly, to take a different view would lead to absurd consequences' Under Act 4 of 1961 as regards many matters like shifting of kudikidappus civil courts had jurisdiction to deal with them in suits and under Act 1 of 1964 Land Tribunals alone can deal with them and that on applications. To allow civil courts to continue suits filed under Act 4 of 1961 would be to allow them to deal with matters in respect of which Land Tribunals alone have now jurisdiction. Such a result can be avoided by a reasonable interpretation and the provisions in S.132(1) and (4) admit of it. 12. I hold that as regards matters not coming under S.132(4)(ii) of Act 1 of 1964 suits filed under Act 4 of 1961 cannot be continued under Act 1 of 1964. 13. It is relevant to recite at this stage the material facts of the case. 12. I hold that as regards matters not coming under S.132(4)(ii) of Act 1 of 1964 suits filed under Act 4 of 1961 cannot be continued under Act 1 of 1964. 13. It is relevant to recite at this stage the material facts of the case. The first respondent in this second appeal on August 20, 1962 instituted a suit under S.37(2) and 39 of Act 4 of 1961 for shifting a kudikidappu. A claim for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the but was also made in the suit. After the repeal of Act 7 of 1963 when the suit was proceeded with the appellants, who were some of the defendants in the trial court, contested the maintainability of the suit in so far as it related to the shifting of the kudikidappu. Accepting that contention the trial court granted a decree to the plaintiffs only for arrears of rent and damages subject to the provisions in S.76 of Act 1 of 1964 and dismissed the suit in all other respects. In the appeal filed by the first respondent therefrom the lower appellate court found that the suit was competent. Consequently even in respect of the shifting of the kudikidappu the suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent. This, in brief, is the background. Having regard to the narrow compass of the matter before me there is no need to go into further matters. 14. Counsel on both sides agreed in submitting that if by S.132 (1) (a) of Act 1 of 1964 suits filed under Act 4 of 1961 in respect of matters not covered by S.132 (4) (ii) of Act 1 of 1964 could not be proceeded with the decision of the trial court had to be restored. 15. In the result this second appeal is disposed of by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court and restoring those passed by the trial court. The appellants are allowed to recover the costs incurred by them in this second appeal from the first respondent. Allowed.