Judgment :- 1. The applicant in O.A. No. 1819 of 1976 of the Land Tribunal, Kottayam, is the petitioner. He applied for purchase of kudikidappu which was resisted by the land owners on the ground that the applicant was not a kudikidappukaran. The Land Tribunal had found that the building in question was a but and that the applicant was a kudikidappukaran. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal passed the final order on 30-11-1977 fixing the purchase price, land available for purchase etc. The respondents filed an appeal against the order dated 30-11-1977 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority as L.R.A.S. No. 2406 of 1977. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Land Tribunal, allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for purchase. This CRP. is directed against the said order. 2. From the statement of facts in the CRP. the background of the litigation between the parties will not be clear. The petitioner's husband is occupying the building. There is dispute whether the building occupied by the petitioner here is the same as the one occupied by her husband. There was a Rent Control Petition as B.R C.O P No. 26 of 1972 to evict the husband from the building. In that case the husband claimed that he was a kudikidappukaran. This question was referred to the Munsiff-Land Tribunal, Alleppey. The Tribunal found that the building was not a hut and that the husband was not a kudikidappukaran. This finding was accepted by the Rent Control Court and eviction was ordered in August, 1976, which order became final. 3. The petitioner's counsel before me submits that the rent control order is not binding on the petitioner since the petitioner is occupying a building different from the one which was the subject-matter of the rent control proceedings. The point forcefully urged before me by the petitioner's counsel is that the earlier order passed by the Land Tribunal on 31-10-1977 upholding the plea of the petitioner that she was a kudikidappukars had become final since that was not appealed against. The appeal before the appellate authority is directed only against the order dated 30-11-1977 and hence the appellate order setting aside the earlier finding of the Land Tribunal dated 31-10-1977 is passed without jurisdiction. 4. From the appeal memorandum filed before the appellate authority it is seen that both the orders were challenged in appeal. The appeal before the appellate authority is directed only against the order dated 30-11-1977 and hence the appellate order setting aside the earlier finding of the Land Tribunal dated 31-10-1977 is passed without jurisdiction. 4. From the appeal memorandum filed before the appellate authority it is seen that both the orders were challenged in appeal. The question to be considered is whether in an appeal against the final order the preliminary order could also be challenged. 5. R.81 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules enables the Land Tribunal to decide the dispute whether the applicant before it is or is not a kudikidappukaran as a preliminary issue and to record a finding on such issue. R.81 reads as follows: "81. Status of applicant to be decided as a preliminary issue.- Where there is dispute as to whether the applicant is or is not a kudikidappukaran, the Land Tribunal shall decide such dispute as a preliminary issue and record a finding on such issue; and where such finding is that he is not a kudikidappukaran, the Land Tribunal shall forthwith dismiss his application." The Land Tribunal has to dismiss the application forthwith if the applicant before it is found to be not a kudikidappukaran but it has to proceed with the petition if it decides otherwise The final order under S.80-B follows the finding on this preliminary issue. The appeal before the Appellate Authority is filed under S 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Among the various provisions of the Act, the orders under which are made appealable, R.81 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules is not one. Appeal is provided for an order under S.80-B which by implication means that in an appeal against the final order under S.80-B, the finding on a preliminary issue which preceded that order could also be challenged. The petitioner's counsel would submit that the absence of R.81 in S.102 would render an appeal against an order under R.81 incompetent and such an order could be questioned only under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. This submission is not well founded. R.81 clearly states that what the Land Tribunal has to do is to decide such disputes as a preliminary issue and record a finding on such issues. This shows that a final order is to follow. This submission is not well founded. R.81 clearly states that what the Land Tribunal has to do is to decide such disputes as a preliminary issue and record a finding on such issues. This shows that a final order is to follow. S.102 enables the party aggrieved by the final order not only to question the decision in the order but even the finding on preliminary issue entered under R.81. The wording of R.81 and S.102 does not admit of any other interpretation. Support for this position can be had from the decision reported in Ayammad v. Parameswaran Namboodiri and others (1976 KLT 788) which dealt with a preliminary decision and the final order under S 72(f) of the Land Reforms Act and R.9(1) and 10 of the Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970. Balagangadharan Nair J. held that in the appeal from the final order it was open to the respondents to challenge preliminary order and the appellate authority had jurisdiction to entertain the challenge. I respectfully agree. Though the provisions are different, the principle laid down in the said decision applies here also and the one which falls for decision in this case is the same. I therefore repel the contention that in the absence of a separate appeal against the preliminary finding under R.81 the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to consider the said finding regarding status in an appeal against the final order. 6. The appellate authority has considered the question whether the building in the occupation of the petitioner is the same as the one in the occupation of her husband. After considering all the records before it, it was held that it was not an independent building but a portion of the same building which the husband was occupying. The appellate authority therefore held under issue No. 2 that the finding entered by the Rent Control Court accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal on a reference that the husband was not a kudikidappukaran of this building bound the wife also. The appellate authority therefore held under issue No. 2 that the finding entered by the Rent Control Court accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal on a reference that the husband was not a kudikidappukaran of this building bound the wife also. The reason given by the appellate authority is that the evidence before it conclusively established that the wife and the husband were residing together and were buying ration from the same ration-card As the husband was the head of the family and as he was found to be not a kudikidappukaran in relation to the same holding, it does not lie in the mouth of the wife to put forward an independent claim that she is a kudikidappukari for the same holding. For these reasons, I hold that the appellate authority was perfectly justified in setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and in declining to hold that the petitioner is a kudikidappukari. The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their costs.