M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of the courts below. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the assignee ofa mortgage created by respondent-gundappa since deceased represented by his l. rs. The facts leading to this appeal may be stated and they are as follows. ( 3 ) GUNDAPPA mortgaged the agriculturalland comprised in two survey numbers in tumkur in favour of one lakshtninarasimhaiah at a point of time. He paid the full mortgage amount and wanted to redeem the same, the mortgagee received the mortgage consideration but refused to give back the documents with the necessary endorsements. That led gundappa to file o. s. No. 82/1959 in the court of the munsiff, tumkur. That suit cama to be decreed. An appeal filed before the civil judge, tumkur, came to be dismissed. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed in this court in rsa. No. 155/1966. That appeal confirmed the decrees drawn up by the trial court and the lower appellate court. But, nevertheless, sent back the matter for consideration in regard to the claim of tenancy put forward by the present appellant, who was the 7th defendant in the suit inter alia on the ground that he was not only an assignee of the mortgagee but also a tenant of the lands under gundappa and even after redemption he had a right to continue in possession as a tenant. At the relevant time when the regular second appeal was disposed of, the forum to decide the question of tenancy was the tribunal created under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) namely, the munsiff having jurisdiction over the area. Therefore, going only into that question the learned munsiff passed an order after recording evidence on the issue suggested by the high court as to whether the present appellant-ramaiah was a tenant of the lands in question and came to the conclusion that he was not such tenant. That judgment was delivered on 31st march, 1971. Against that, an appeal was preferred by the said ramaiah before the district judge, tumkur, in m. a. No. 68 / 1977. It appears that appeal abated in view of the changes in the act causing ouster of jurisdiction. In the result, the present appellant preferred r. a. No. 20 / 1987 in the court of the additional civil judge, tumkur. It appears that appeal abated in view of the changes in the act causing ouster of jurisdiction. In the result, the present appellant preferred r. a. No. 20 / 1987 in the court of the additional civil judge, tumkur. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned civil judge by his order dated 29th november, 1989. Therefore, the present appeal. ( 4 ) IT has been difficult to reallyunderstand the scope of the appeal. The question of law raised is that the learned civil judge could not have proceeded to determine the question of tenancy in view of sec. 133 of the act and therefore he had no jurisdiction to pass an order upholding the order passed by the learned munsiff who was at the relevant time the tribunal under the act and who had to discharge the duty of carrying into effect the remand qrder made in the earlier second appeal. ( 5 ) IT has been pointed out by thecaveator who had entered caveat that the question of lenancy was not decided by the learned civil judge; that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant- ramaiah approached the land tribunal, tumkur, for registration of occupancy right in respect of the agricultural lands in question and that came to be dismissed and his attempt to have them set aside in proceedings under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in this court did not meet with success. Therefore, if the question was decided by the land tribunal in exercise of its power under the Act, then whether a reference was made by the civil court, namely. Civil judge, or not becomes immaterial as long as the competent authority decided that question. In that view of the matter, the question of law raised for consideration in this case does not really arise on the facts of the case. ( 6 ) IT was next urged by Mr. R. b. sadasivappa, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appeal must be construed as against the amendment made to the final decree on 29-1-1987 on the application of the mortgagor-plaintiff. It now turns out that an amendment was a formal amendment in as much as the decree for redemption had been drawn up in the form prescribed for foreclosure of a mortgage to sell the mortgage property. It now turns out that an amendment was a formal amendment in as much as the decree for redemption had been drawn up in the form prescribed for foreclosure of a mortgage to sell the mortgage property. Therefore, the court allowed the amendment and directed the office to draw up the decree in the prescribed form for redemption of mortgage. Therefore, after the conclusion of the regular appeal No. 20/1987 on the file of the civil judge in 1989, it will not be open to tha appellant to contend that the amendment made to the final decree in 1987 was without the authority of law and therefore a question of law arises for consideration. Even that statement, it turns out, is not well conceived or well founded in as much as a revision petition preferred by the same appellant in crp. No. 1764/1987 came to be dismissed by this court on 16th april, 1987 holding that it was a mere clerical error, and therefore, not amenable to be interfered with under sec. 115 of the C. P. C. ( 7 ) IT was again contended by Mr. sadasivappa that an appeal earlier filed by the original mortgagee against the same judgment and decree and that also has come to be dismissed. It that is so, this appeal seems to be barred by res judicata, as the appellant was a party in the earlier second appeal filed by the original mortgagee. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons there is nomerit in this appeal and it is rejected. --- *** --- .