Judgment :- 1. The short point that arises for consideration in this execution second appeal is this: what was originally a single holding was split into three separate holdings by the act of parties. The holdings were sold in court auction in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and the decree-holder purchased the same and delivery of possession taken in 1965 and 1966. The tenant of one of the holdings applied for restoration of possession under S.13B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, for short the Act, complying with the conditions imposed by sub-section (2) thereof and impleading the tenants of the other two holdings as respondents. Are the tenants of these two holdings who did not either make the applications under S.13B (2) of the Act or make the necessary deposits, entitled to restoration of possession of their holdings under S.13B of the Act. A question whether, in a case where the decree holder purchaser has put the properties in the possession of mortgagees, the application for restoration is maintainable without impleading those mortgagees also arises for consideration. The plaintiff-decree holder in O. S No. 63 of 1961 and the first respondent in E. A. No. 662 of 1970 in E. P. No. 363 of 1964 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Tirur is the appellant in this execution second appeal. O. S. No. 63 of 1961 was a suit for arrears of rent in respect of eleven items of properties given on kanom to one Kadungoth Narayani Amma. The first defendant got an assignment of the kanam right in respect of items 1 to 9 while the 2nd defendant got an assignment of the same right in respect of item 10. The kanom right in respect of item 11 devolved on defendants 3 to 5. In execution of the decree for arrears of rent all the properties were sold in court auction and delivery of possession taken in 1965 and 1966. The appellant decree holder gave items 1 to 9 on usufructuary mortgages to strangers. When the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act 9 of 1967 came into force, the 2nd defendant filed E. A. No. 935 of 1967 under S.6 of that Act for setting aside the sale and re-delivery. A similar application was filed by the 1st defendant as E. A. No. 1170 of 1967. When the Kerala Stay of Eviction Proceedings Act 9 of 1967 came into force, the 2nd defendant filed E. A. No. 935 of 1967 under S.6 of that Act for setting aside the sale and re-delivery. A similar application was filed by the 1st defendant as E. A. No. 1170 of 1967. The 2nd defendant died pending the application, and his legal representatives, respondents 5 to 8 here, were not impleaded as they did not apply in time. When the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 35 of 1969 came into force, the 1st defendant filed E.A. No 662 of 1970 under S.13B of the Act impleading defendants 3 to 5 and the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant and allowed E. A. No. 1170 of 1967 to be dismissed as not pressed. Overruling the objections of the appellant the learned Munsiff ordered re-delivery of items 1 to 9 to the 1st respondent, item 10 to respondents 5 to 8 and item 11 to respondents 2 to 4. The court below dismissed the appeal against the above order of the learned Munsiff. In this execution second appeal the challenge is against the above judgment of the court below. 2. S.13 B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 as inserted by the amendment Act, 35 of 1969. reads: "13B Restoration of possession of certain holdings sold for arrears of rent. (I) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, where any holding has been sold in execution of any decree for arrears of rent, and the tenant has been dispossessed of the holding after the 1st day of April, 1964 and before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1967, such sale shall stand set aside and such tenant shall be entitled to restoration of possession of the holding, subject to the provisions of this section: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in any case where the holding has been sold to a bona fide purchaser for consideration after the date of such dispossession and before the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 1968, in the Gazette. (2) Any person entitled to restoration of possession of his holding under sub-section (I) may, within a period of six months from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, deposit the purchase money together with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum in the court and apply to the court for setting aside the sale and for restoration of possession of his holding. (3) The court shall, if satisfied after such summary enquiry as the court deems fit. set aside and restore the applicant to possession of his holding. (4) The court may also order the applicant to deposit in court such amount as may be specified by the court towards costs of the decree holder or the auction purchaser and the value of improvements, if any, effected on the holding after the sale. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, the term 'holding' includes a part of a holding." Section 2 (17) of the Act which defines holding'reads': 'holding' means a parcel or parcels of land held under a single transaction by a tenant from a landlord and shall include any portion of a holding as above defined which the landlord and the tenant have agreed or are bound to treat as a separate holding Explanation I. Where by act of parties or by operation of law, the interest of the tenant in bis holding has been severed before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1967, splitting up the holding into two or more parts or where a portion of the holding has been sub-leased, before the commencement of this Act. each such part or, as the case may be, each of the portions retained by the tenant and sub-leased, shall be deemed to be a separate holding. Explanation II. Any land in respect of which a person is deemed to be a tenant under S.4, S.4A, S.5, S.6, S.6A, S.6B, S.7, S.7A, S.7B, S.7C, S.71), S.8, S.9 or S.10 or presumed to be a tenant under section II shall be a holding for the purposes of this Act." In Vijayan v. Kallikkad Nallanikhal Gramodharana Sanghom (C.R.P. No. 1477 of 1974) construing S.22 of the Kerala Agriculturist Debt Relief, Act, 1958, a provision similar to S.13B of the Act, Mr. Justice Viswanatha Iyer has said: "The respondents are only part owners of the property sold in court auction. Justice Viswanatha Iyer has said: "The respondents are only part owners of the property sold in court auction. Though they are entitled to apply for setting aside the sale, a question arises whether they can recover possession of the entire property sold. Sub-section 2 of S.22 provides for re-delivery of the property to the judgment-debtor when a sale is set aside under sub-section 1. The word 'redeliverv' assumes an earlier delivery from (he person who applies In other words, sub-section 2 is in the nature of a restitution consequent on the setting aside of the sale. The respondents are admittedly only part owners. They were not in possession of the entire property sold; and restoration of possession can therefore be only of the portion which was lost to them under the sale." The Explanation to S.13B says that for the purpose of the section, the term 'holding' includes a part of a holding. Explanation.) to S.2(17) of the Act says that where by act of parties or by operation of law the interest of a tenant in a holding has been severed before the amendment Act 35 of 1969 splitting up the holding into two or more parts, each such part will be deemed to be as par-ate holding. In this case, what was originally one holding was split info three even before the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. Even if the splitting has taken place after the commencement of Act 35 of 1969 under S 13B, the tenant of a pari of the holding can apply for restoration of possession of his holding. Not only he can apply, if he wants to get possession of his holding he should apply, An applicant under the section can be restored possession of his holding he was dispossessed in execution of the decree. He cannot ask for the restoration of the possession of the lands which formed the holding of another tenant even though all the land's once formed a single holding. In view of S.2(17) and the Explanation to S.13B, the legal position will not be changed by the mere fact that the decree-holder-laodlord raised a contention that the original holding continues as such. In view of S.2(17) and the Explanation to S.13B, the legal position will not be changed by the mere fact that the decree-holder-laodlord raised a contention that the original holding continues as such. As per S.13B, the court sab will stand set aside piecemeal in a case where more than one holding were sold together and the tenant of one of the holdings applied for restoration of possession under the section. The only bar for the restoration of possession under the section is the sale of the holding to a bona fide purchaser after dispossession and before the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 1968. In this case, admittedly, there is no sale of the holdings. So, the usufructuary mortgages executed in respect of items 1 to 9 cannot stand in the way and the court-sale in respect of those items will stand set aside on the application of the tenant of that holding as he has complied with the conditions imposed by S 13B(2). The mortgagees need not be made parties in the application under S.13B. the sale stood set aside then possession cannot but be restored to the tenant. The courts below went wrong in restoring possession of items 10 and 11 because this can be done only on the application of the tenants of those holdings The court-sale in respect of those holdings will not stand set aside as the tenants of those holdings have not filed an application under S.13B(1). 3. Learned counsel appearing on both sides have raised other contentions and relied on a number of decisions. But in view of the above findings I am not dealing with those contentions. 4. In the result, the judgment of the court below is confirmed as far as the restoration of possession of items 1 to 9 and set aside as far as items 10 and 11 are concerned. The execution second appeal is disposed of as above. No costs.