Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 171 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, Ernakulam, is the appellant. He filed the suit against three defendants for realisation of arrears of rent and damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal that the 1st defendant was a kudikidappukaran and now after his death the 2nd respondent who is his son and heir is a kudikidappukaran. 2. The plaint schedule property is 56 cents of land and a building. Plaintiff is the owner. The property was outstanding on mortgage. The mortgage was redeemed on 20-6-1964. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant was permitted to occupy the building for a monthly rent of Rs. 61/2 on the agreement that he will vacate within six months. Alleging that the Ist defendant defaulted rent from 1-1-1968 and committed damages by demolishing a fence, the suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 234/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 50/- as damages. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that the 1st defendant is a kudikidappukari and the building is a hut. They denied the rent arrangement as well as the allegation of waste. Third defendant who is the wife of the 2nd defendant, stated that she is residing elsewhere and she has nothing to do with the plaint schedule building. 4. On the contention of defendants 1 and 2 the question of kudikidappu right was referred to the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam. It was taken to file by the Land Tribunal as O.A No 1143 of 1971. When the O.A. was pending the 2nd defendant filed O.A. No. 30 of 1970 before the Land Tribunal, Vadakode. The Land Tribunal, Ernakulam was subsequently abolished. O.A.No.1143 of 1971 was taken to the file of the Land Tribunal, Alleppey and renumbered as O.A No. 274 of 1975. Meanwhile O.A.No. 30 of 1970 pending before the Land Tribunal, Vadakode was decided and the 2nd defendant was found to be a kudikidappukaran. Against that order the plaintiff filed L.R.A.S. 700 of 1972 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the case remanded. After remand, the Perumbavoor Land Tribunal took the O.A. to its file as O.A.No. 2309 of 1975. It was again decided on 30-8-1976 finding that the 2nd defendant is a kudikidappukaran. The order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the case remanded. After remand, the Perumbavoor Land Tribunal took the O.A. to its file as O.A.No. 2309 of 1975. It was again decided on 30-8-1976 finding that the 2nd defendant is a kudikidappukaran. Plaintiff again took up the matter before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority as L.R.A.S. No. 599 of 1976. Even at that time O.A.No. 274 of 1975 which was registered on the basis of the reference from the trial court was pending before the Land Tribunal, Alleppey. In L.R.A.S. No. 599 of 1976 on the application of the present plaintiff who was the appellant therein, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam stayed the proceedings in O. A. No. 274 of 1975 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Alleppey, by order dated 6-9-1978. The complaint of the appellant is that in spite of the stay order the Land Tribunal, Alleppey decided O. A. No. 274 of 1975 on 16-10-1978 finding that the 1st defendant was a kudikidappukari and that after her death the 2nd defendant is a kudikidappukaran as her legal representative. 5. It was accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal that the trial court dismissed the suit since defendants 1 and 2 are kudikidappukars. The complaint of the appellant is that the finding entered by the Land Tribunal is illegal on account of the stay and therefore the finding of the trial court incorporating the illegal finding is also an illegality. I do not think that there is any force in that contention. 6. In the first place there is nothing to show that any stay order from the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, was received by the Land Tribunal, Alleppey, before disposing of O. A. No. 274 of 1975 on 16-10-1978. I was told by the counsel for the appellant that he reported the matter of stay before the Land Tribunal, Alleppey on 18-9-1978 and therefore O.A. No. 274 of 1975 was adjourned to 16-10-1978. It was conceded that on 16-10-1978 the appellant did not appear and no stay order was produced before the Land Tribunal. These facts only go against the case of the appellant because they only show that the Land Tribunal, Alleppey had no authentic information regarding stay. 7. It was conceded that on 16-10-1978 the appellant did not appear and no stay order was produced before the Land Tribunal. These facts only go against the case of the appellant because they only show that the Land Tribunal, Alleppey had no authentic information regarding stay. 7. Under S.102, sub-section (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, in deciding appeals under sub-section (1), the appellate authority shall exercise all the powers which a court has and follow the same procedure which a court follows in deciding appeals against the decree of an original court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel says that the appellate authority was competent to invoke the jurisdiction under 0.41 R.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of granting stay. I do not think that this argument has got any force. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, was not sitting in judgment over the decision of the Land Tribunal, Alleppey, while entertaining and disposing of L.R.A.S. No. 599 of 1976. That was only an appeal from an order in a proceeding initiated on the application of the 2nd defendant. O.A. No. 274 of 1975 originated on the basis of a reference made by the trial court under sub-section (3) of S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Against the order in such an O.A. the appellate authority has no appellate jurisdiction. The Land Tribunal has only to enter its finding and return the papers to the trial court which made the reference. Thereafter the trial court has to accept the finding and decide the suit. It is only the appellate court that can sit in judgment over the decision of the Land Tribunal under the legal fiction that it is a finding of the trial court. That jurisdiction which is vested with the appellate courts alone cannot be usurped by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to order stay of the continuance of the proceedings initiated on the basis of a reference by the civil court. It, therefore, follows that the stay order, if any, issued by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, was without jurisdiction and not binding on the Land Tribunal, Alleppey. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to order stay of the continuance of the proceedings initiated on the basis of a reference by the civil court. It, therefore, follows that the stay order, if any, issued by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, was without jurisdiction and not binding on the Land Tribunal, Alleppey. Even if the Land Tribunal, Alleppey, has received the stay order from the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, it cannot be said that there was any illegality on the part of the Land Tribunal, Alleppey, in proceeding with the case. 8. The counsel for the appellant stated that apart from the question of illegality, there is a question of prejudice involved in this case. He told me that on account of the stay order issued by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, the appellant went under the impression that nothing will transpire on 16-10-1978 and therefore he was prevented from adducing evidence to substantiate his contention. I am not satisfied that there is any merit in this contention also. During the course of arguments the counsel for the appellant brought to my notice two extracts from the copy of the order sheet in O.A.No. 274 of 1975 of the Munsiff - Land Tribunal, Alleppey. From these two extracts what is seen is that on 18-9-1978 the plaintiff reported to the Land Tribunal that there was a stay order. When the case was adjourned to 16-10-1978, he refrained from appearing before the Land Tribunal and a copy of the order of the Appellate Authority itself was not made available to the Land Tribunal. Therefore the laches was on the part of the appellant-plaintiff and nobody also. There is nothing to show that at that time the O. A. was pending for evidence or that but for the stay, the appellant would have adduced evidence before the Land Tribunal. I feel that this argument was intended only for the purpose of gaining time by getting an order of remand. The case is of the year 1971 and I do not think that there is any justification in sending it back. I am not at all satisfied that any prejudice was occasioned. 9. If actually there was any prejudice and there was an illegality on the part of the Land Tribunal, Alleppey, the appellant ought to have raised that contention before the lower appellate court. I am not at all satisfied that any prejudice was occasioned. 9. If actually there was any prejudice and there was an illegality on the part of the Land Tribunal, Alleppey, the appellant ought to have raised that contention before the lower appellate court. The judgment of the lower appellate court does not show that such a contention was raised before it. In these circumstances, I do not think that there is any merit in the contention of the appellant. The finding of the Land Tribunal was that the Ist defendant was a kudikidappukars and as heir the 2nd defendant inherited the kudikidappu right. This finding accepted by the trial court was the subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court in the light of the evidence on record. The appellate court concurred with that finding. There is nothing for this Court in second appeal to interfere with that finding. The second appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, I am not making any order as to costs.