Judgment :- 1. In this revision petition the question that arises for determination turns on the interpretation of the explanation to S.2(52) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963. 2. The bare facts necessary may be stated. The revision petitioners were admittedly tenants of lands which exceeded the ceiling limit provided by the Act. The tenancy of ten items of properties was created by a tarwad of which the first respondent herein was a member by document dated 28-4-1893 and that tarwad also admittedly owned or possessed or had interest in land exceeding the ceiling limits provided under the Act. So the tarwad which is also a person as defined in the Act was not a small holder under the Act. In that tarwad a partition took place on 1-9-61 and the property in the A schedule in the partition deed, Ext. Al, having an extent of 8.59 acres was allotted to the first respondent. On the 30th June 1970 the first respondent made an application under S.16A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for resumption of the land. A preliminary objection was taken by the revision petitioners that the application was not maintainable in view of the explanation to S.2(52) of the above Act. This objection was negatived both by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority on the basis of the decision of the Full Bench of this court in C R.P. No. 898 of 1966. 3. We shall now turn to S.2(52) and the explanation and shall extract them. "2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (52) 'small holder' means a landlord who does not have interest in land exceeding eight standard acres or ten acres in extent, whichever is less, as owner, intermediary, or cultivating tenant, or in two or more of the above capacities, so however that the extent of non-resumable land in his possession as owner, or as cultivating tenant, or partly as owner and partly as cultivating tenant, does not exceed (i) two and a half standard acres; or (ii) four acres in extent, whichever is greater. Explanation. Explanation. -For the purposes of this clause a person who was in possession of, or had interest in, land exceeding the limits specified in this clause immediately before the 18th December, 1957, but such extent of land was reduced to the said limits or below by partition or transfer effected after the date mentioned above, shall not be deemed to be a small holder; nor shall such partition or transfer entitle the allottee or transferee to exercise the rights of a small holder in respect of the land allotted or transferred to him;" 4. This court in its judgment in C.R.P. 898 of 1966 expressed the view that "the object of the Explanation is only to prevent fraudulent partition or transfer executed solely to defeat the rights of the tenants under Act 1 of 1964. When members of a tarwad bonafide partition tarwad properties among themselves it will not be hit by the Explanation to S.2 (52) of the Act. We are therefore of the view that the decision of the court below that the petitioners arc not small holders cannot be sustained." 5. With great respect we are unable to agree that any such fraudulent intention or motive to defeat the provisions of the Act is necessary to attract the explanation to S.2 (52). The wording of the explanation is fairly clear and the object also appears to us to be equally clear. The object is that the fixity of tenure conferred by S.13 of the Act should not be destroyed or disturbed by a partition or transfer effected after 18-12-57 the date mentioned in the explanation to S.2 (52). The fact that the extent of the land held by the allottee or the transferee, after the partition or transfer effected after 8-12-57, was less then the area permitted to a small holder would not enable the allottee or transferee to obtain the benefits of a small holder in view of the explanation to S.2 (52). The latter part of the explanation is very clear and it states that such an allottee or a transferee "shall not be deemed to be a small holder" and further that such partition or transfer shall not entitle the allottee or transferee to exercise the rights of a small holder in respect of the land allotted or transferred to him. The latter part of the explanation is very clear and it states that such an allottee or a transferee "shall not be deemed to be a small holder" and further that such partition or transfer shall not entitle the allottee or transferee to exercise the rights of a small holder in respect of the land allotted or transferred to him. All that is required to attract the explanation as we read the explanation, is that there should have been transfer or a partition after the 18th December 1957 and by such transfer or partition the extent of the land has been reduced within the limits permitted by S.2 (52) of the Act. These conditions have been satisfied in this case. Before the partition the land holder was not a small holder. No doubt at that time the land holder was a tarwad. That, in our opinion, does not make any difference. The partition was on 1-3-1961, after 18th December 1957, the crucial date mentioned in the explanation. The reduction or the area to below that which could be held by a small holder was by virtue of that partition. The allottee, the first respondent cannot therefore claim the benefits of a small holder nor will he be entitled to exercise the rights of a small holder. 6. With great respect we differ from the view expressed in C. R. P. 898 of 1966. 7. The application under S.16A was made on the 30th June 1970 which is within the time stipulated by sub-s. (2) of S.16A. Notwithstanding the fact that the notification under S.72 vested all right, title and interest of the land holders in the Government in respect of the holding held by cultivating tenants from 1-1-1970 such vesting is postponed in the case of a small holder to six months from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 by the provision in sub-s (4) of S.72. So the application made on the 30th June 1970 within six months of the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969 which came into force on 1-1-1970 is within time. Even so it is not maintainable because the applicant is not a small holder. We allow this revision petition, set aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority and dismiss the application under S.16A. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Allowed.