THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The surviving defendants in a suit for partition are the appellants. Mundappa Gatty had three children; a son Manju Gatty and daughters Birmage and Korappalu. Manju Gatty died issueless and intestate and his right also devolved on the sisters and the plaintiffs are the heirs of Korappalu. They accordingly sued for partition.

2. The defendants contended that Manju Gatty was himself the cultivating tenant of the property in question, he having obtained lease from Vakil Narasimha Naik and had, along with the heirs of Narasimha Naik, filed J Form under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and obtained Ext.A8 order of assignment and certificate regarding the property in question and Manju Gatty who remained unmarried and issueless had executed Ext.B1 Will in favour of the 2nd defendant, who is the son of the 1st defendant.

3. The fact that Ext.A8 purchase certificate is issued by the Land Tribunal in favour of the 2nd defendant is admitted by the plaintiffs, even going by the plaint averments, in as much as, they plead the said fact; do not impeach it as a fraudulent action before the Land Tribunal; but contended that the benefit of Ext.A8 inured to the benefit of the three children of Mundappa Gatty since, according to them, it was Manju Gatty who had originally obtained the lease from the land owner Narasimha Naik. It was on that basis that they pleaded in the plaint that the action of Manju Gatty in obtaining Ext.A8 purchase certificate is one on behalf of all the heirs of Mundappa Gatty and therefore, Ext.A8 inures to their benefit also.

4. The court below, on an appreciation of Ext.A8, took the view that the said order by the Land Tribunal and certification were not issued after looking into the lease, but only by acting on the J Form and that on the basis of the materials on record in the suit from which this appeal arises, the lease has to be held as one in favour of Mundappa Gatty and not Manju Gatty. It accordingly held that the benefit of Ext.A8 inures in favour of the children of Mundappa Gatty, though the order and certificate issued by the Land Tribunal stands in the name of Manju Gatty. It further upheld Ext.B1 Will by Manju Gatty containing the bequest in favour of the 2nd defendant. Accordingly, the impugned preliminary decree for partition was passed.

5. Heard.

6. In our view, the learned counsel for the appellants appears to be justified in arguing that without impeaching Ext.A8, or in the alternative, without seeking a declaration that it inures to the benefit of the three children of Mundappa Gatty, it was impermissible to order partition merely on the assumption that Ext.A8 inured to the benefit of Manju Gatty, Birmage and Korappalu. The proceeding under the Land Reforms Act is a statutory proceeding. It gains finality by the issuance of the order and the consequential certificate of purchase.

7. Section 72K(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides that the certificate of purchase issued under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive proof of the assignment to the tenant of the right, title and interest of the land owner and the intermediaries, if any, over the holding, or portion thereof, to which the assignment relates. Once such a certificate is issued, the person in whose name it is issued is to be considered as the person in possession of the property. As held in Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty v. Parambur Mariakutty Umma[(2000) 2 SCC 417], such certificate of purchase is binding and when the enactment enjoins that any evidence could be treated as conclusive proof of a particular factual position or legal hypothesis, the law would forbid other evidence from being adduced for the purpose of contradicting or varying that conclusiveness.

8. In the absence of any plea that the aforesaid certificate has been obtained by fraud and without seeking any declaration as to title on the basis of the purchase certificate which stands in the name of Manju Gatty, the other children of M