ORDER M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The first judgment debtor in E.P.No.1/99 in O.S.No.487 of 1981 of the Addl. Munsiff Court, Nedumangad challenges the legality and propriety of the order dated 18-11-1999 passed in the case refusing reference of the question of kudikidappu raised by him to the Land Tribunal and finding that the decree holder would be entitled to get delivery of possession of decree scheduled property. The suit was one for redemption. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the question of kudikidappu right of the first judgment debtor was left open to be decided in execution as per the final decree passed in the case and as such a reference of the question was inevitable. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents who was heard, however relied on the decision in Victoria v. K.V. Naik ( 1997 (6) SCC 23 ) to contend that even if it was so left open the contention would be barred by res judicata and a reference is unnecessary. 4. It is not disputed that in the preliminary decree the question of kudikidappu raised by the first judgment debtor was deferred for consideration at the later stage. It is also not in dispute that even in the final decree there was reference to the claim of the first judgment debtor in the matter and it was specifically provided that it should be considered at the execution stage. The first judgment debtor has raised the question once again and hence the only other question is whether the decision in Victoria's case stands in the way of such reference. I have perused the decision and the facts of the case are found to be different. That was a case where the trial court had negatived the contention with regard to kudikidappu under Explanation.4 to S.25. The other finding in the judgment is that if the contention is taken and rejected the same cannot be raised in execution. In the present case the contention, no doubt, had been taken; but not rejected. Both the decrees in the case only relegated the question for decision to the execution stage. In the aforesaid circumstances, the decision is inapplicable here and the reference sought for is inevitable. 5. In the present case the contention, no doubt, had been taken; but not rejected. Both the decrees in the case only relegated the question for decision to the execution stage. In the aforesaid circumstances, the decision is inapplicable here and the reference sought for is inevitable. 5. The impugned order is hence set aside and the court below is directed to refer the question of kudikidappu raised by the first judgment debtor to the Land Tribunal and after getting the same, to proceed with it in accordance with law and in the light of the further directions made in that regard in the final decree. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1981, the court below will make a sincere effort to dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the findings of the Land Tribunal. The C.R.P. is disposed of as above.