Judgment :- 1. The defendant in a suit for eviction with arrears of rent is the appellant in this second appeal. Notice was ordered in this Second Appeal on the following question of law: "As to whether the courts below were justified in passing a decree for eviction without referring the matter under S.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the Land Tribunal in a case where the defendant claimed kudikidappu rights?" 2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that 3 rooms and a kitchen of the building in which she resides were let out to the defendant-appellant and it was eviction from the above building that was sought for in the suit. The defendant-appellant contended that the building in which she resides is a but and no rent was agreed to be paid. 3. Though no contention that the defendant is a kudikidappukaran was taken as such in the case, reading the written statement as a whole, it is really a contention that she is a kudikidappukaran that was taken as a defence in the written statement. 4. Prior to the filing of this suit the defendant filed an original application before the Land Tribunal for purchase of her kudikidappu right. That was dismissed by the Land Tribunal and it is that decision of the Land Tribunal that still holds the field even though an appeal against that decision, according to the defendant-appellant, is still pending before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms). The trial court decreed the suit rejecting the contentions of the defendant-appellant. According to the trial court no specific plea of kudikidappu was taken by the defendant. 5. The above judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendant in appeal. But the lower appellate court confirmed the judgement and decree of the trial court and dismissed that appeal. It was under the above circumstances that the defendant has come up in second appeal before this court. 6. 5. The above judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the defendant in appeal. But the lower appellate court confirmed the judgement and decree of the trial court and dismissed that appeal. It was under the above circumstances that the defendant has come up in second appeal before this court. 6. The main contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the question of kudikidappu arose in the case and since the trial court did not refer the question to the Land Tribunal for its findings the judgment and decree of the trial court and those of the appellate court are mere nullities, as a reference was a must in the case since the question of kudikidappu was raised in the written statement by the defendant. It goes without saying that if, as a matter of fact, the question of kudikidappu really arose in the case the trial court was bound to refer the question to the Land Tribunal for its findings and if that was not done the judgment and decree of the trial court will only be a nullity. But the question is whether the question of kudikidappu really arose in the case and there was any need for a reference to the Land Tribunal for its findings on that question. Admittedly the defendant's application for purchase of kudikidappu was dismissed by the Tribunal before the suit itself was filed. Even though an appeal is said to be pending against that decision, it is that decision which still holds the field. It was that decision which was there when the suit was decided by the trial court. As long as that decision was there even if the trial court made a reference to the Land Tribunal that would only have been an exercise in futility as the Tribunal is bound by its earlier decision. The fact that an appeal was pending or is pending takes us nowhere because as long as the decision of the Tribunal is not interfered with by the Appellate Authority, the pendency of an appeal from that decision by itself cannot be a reason for making a reference in the suit. 7. Over and above this, it is in evidence that it was only a part of a building that was let out to the defendant-appellant. 7. Over and above this, it is in evidence that it was only a part of a building that was let out to the defendant-appellant. According to the plaintiff she herself is occupying the other part of the building. In that case, it goes without saying that no question of kudikidappu arises in the case because no kudikidappu can be created for part of a building. In the above facts and circumstances also a reference was not necessary because only when a question of kudikidappu really arises the civil court is bound to make a reference to the Land Tribunal for its findings on that question. For the reasons stated above, it goes without saying that no interference can be made in this second appeal. Hence the second appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.