Judgment :- 1. The decree holders are the petitioners in this Civil Revision. The challenge is against an order of the Execution Court staying the execution and referring the question of kudikidappu to the Land Tribunal for its decision. In the suit for redemption of a mortgage with possession the mortgagee who resides in the property contended that she was a tenant or. in the alternative, a kudikidappukari and hence could not be disposed. On reference to 'the Land Tribunal, both the contentions were found against the respondent. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for redemption. The petitioners deposited the mortgage money and a final decree was also passed. When the petitioners applied for the delivery of the property in execution the respondent judgment-debtor filed objections raising the contention of kudikidappu and requesting for reference of the question of kudikidappu to the Land Tribunal. The Execution Court found that at the time of execution the respondent can claim kudikidappu, referred the question of kudikidappu to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 and stayed the execution proceedings by the impugned order. 2. Explanation IV to S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964. for short the Act, reads: "Explanation IV. Where a mortgagee with possession erects for his residence a homestead, or resides in a but already in existence, on the land to which the mortgage relates, he shall, notwithstanding the redemption of the mortgage, be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran in respect of such homestead or hut, provided that at the time of the redemption (a) he has no other kudikidappu or residential building belonging to him, or any land exceeding three cents in any city or major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten cents in any Panchayat area or township, in possession either as owner or as tenant, on which be could erect a homestead; and (b) his annual income does not exceed two thousand rupees." The right which the petitioner claims is under Explanation IV. The right springs up only on redemption of the mortgage. As per the Explanation, the respondent-mortgagee who resides in the mortgage property will be deemed to be a kudikidappukari on the redemption of the mortgage with possession. The right springs up only on redemption of the mortgage. As per the Explanation, the respondent-mortgagee who resides in the mortgage property will be deemed to be a kudikidappukari on the redemption of the mortgage with possession. In that case, a reference of the question of kudikidappu to the Land Tribunal and its finding that the petitioner has no kudikidappu right pending the suit for redemption cannot stand in the way of the adjudication of the claim of kudikidappu which accrued to the respondent only by the decree for redemption passed later which snapped the ties of mortgagor and mortgagee. Under law, the respondent had yet to become a deemed kudikidappukari when the Land Tribunal gave the finding that she had no kudikidappu rights. The claim of kudikidappu now made in execution being one made on facts and circumstance not in existence at the time when the Land Tribunal gave the finding that the respondent was not a kudikidappukari cannot be barred by res judicata. So, in a case like this a reference is a must at this stage. If the person in possession satisfies the conditions insisted by the Explanation he will be entitled to purchase the but and the extent of the land he is entitled under S.80A(3) of the Act. 3. The further question that arises is whether the delivery of the decree schedule property except the but should be postponed till the Land Tribunal gives a finding on the question of kudikidappu raised. The respondent's stand before the Execution Court was that she has no objection to the delivery of the decree schedule property excluding the but and the ten cents on which it stands. The respondent can get the ten cents only when she purchases the kudikidappu under the Act and that too after the Land Tribunal gives a finding that she is a kudikidappukari. Till then, she can have only possession of the hut. Of course, her rights under S.79 A of the Act cannot be interfered with. So, the delivery can be effected subject to the above rights of the respondent kudikipappukari and the stay imposed by the impugned order is lifted. 4. The Civil Revision is disposed of as above. No costs.