Judgment :- Against the revision petitioner first respondent filed O.A.768 of 1973 under S. SOB of the Kerala Land Reforms act for purchase of alleged kudikidappu right. The revision petitioner denied the status of kudikidappu claimed by the first respondent and contended that he is in occupation of the building having agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs. 12.50. The Original Application was dismissed for default. Thereafter, first respondent filed O.A.141 of 1975 for the very same relief. That Original Application was compromised between the parties. Land Tribunal accepted the compromise and passed an order on 31-3-1975 allowing the first respondent to purchase five cents of property. Again first respondent tiled O.A.258 of 1975 before the Land Tribunal for purchase. The. Views petitioner opposed the Original Application on the ground that it is barred by resjudicata and that the first respondent cannot claim kudikidappu right over any extent of property beyond the five cents given to him as per order in O.A.141 of 1975. The Land Tribunal rejected the contention of the revision petitioner and held that first respondent is entitled to succeed in the present Original Application as he had not deposited the purchase price due to the revision petitioner-landlord. The revision petitioner filed A.A.3S44 of 1979 before the Appellate Authority (Land reforms), Kozhikode. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 2. Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal holding that under S. 80C (3) non-payment of purchase price by the kudikidappukaran to the landlord automatically cancels the order of the Land Tribunal allowing purchase of kudikidappu and as the first respondent has not paid first instalment of the purchase price due to the revision petitioner the order of the Land Tribunal stood cancelled and therefore the present Original Application is maintainable. 3. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether it is open to a landlord and a kudikidappukaran to enter ink) an agreement whereby the former can relinquish his right to receive the purchase price from the latter. S. 80A (8A) which was introduced as per Act 25 of 1971 enables the landlord and the kudikidappukaran 10 agree in writing that the kudikidappukaran need not pay his share of the purchase price. The Land Tribunals well as the Appellate Authority over looked this Section when they passed the impugned orders. S. 80A (8A) which was introduced as per Act 25 of 1971 enables the landlord and the kudikidappukaran 10 agree in writing that the kudikidappukaran need not pay his share of the purchase price. The Land Tribunals well as the Appellate Authority over looked this Section when they passed the impugned orders. The order in O.A.141 of 1975 stales that no amount shall be paid by the kudikidappukaran as the landlord had agreed to forgo the kudikidappukaran's share of the purchase price. Section 80C (3) is to the effect that where a kudikidappukaran fails to deposit the first instalment of the purchase price, if any due from him, on or before the due date, the order of the Land Tribunal under sub-s;(3) of Section SOB shall stand cancelled and the kudikidappukaran shall continue as kudikidappukaran. The above sub-section was omitted by Act 15 of 1976 which came into force on 25-3-1976. When O.A.141 of 1975 was disposed of, S.80C (3) was in force. Even though it was in force, S.80A (8A) which specifically recognised the right of the landlord and the kudikidappukaran to agree in writing that the latter need not pay his share of the purchase price was very much there and so the agreement entered into between the parties while O.A.141 of 1975 was pending cannot at all be considered to be in violation of any of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. S.80C (3) only made the position clear that in a case where the kudikidappukaran has to pay the purchase price he must pay the same on or before the due date or else he will have to continue as the kudikidappukaran. In view of the agreement between the parties, there was no necessity at all on the part ofthe kudikidappukaran to pay any purchase price to the landlord. That being the position, S.80C (3) has no application to the facts of the case in hand. Thus, in a case where landlord and kudikidappukaran have entered into an agreement that the later need not pay any purchase price to the former and an order of the Land Tribunal has been accordingly passed the latter cannot circumvent it later and contend that he is entitled to purchase a larger extent of property than that he had agreed to earlier. 4. 4. S.108A makes the position clear that the provisions of S.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to proceedings before the Land Tribunal. As the first respondent had confined his claim of kudikidappu to five cents and as the Land Tribunal passed order allowing him to purchase five cents of properly as kudikidappu taking into account the fact that the landlord had agreed not to claim any purchase price from the respondent-kudikidappukaran, the Original Application filed by him as O.A.258 of 1975 is not maintainable as it is barred by resjudicata. 5. The order of the Land Tribunal and that of the Appellate Authority are set aside. O.A.258 of 1975 stands dismissed. The C.R.P.stands allowed with no order as to costs.