The main legal point established in the judgment is the conclusive proof of the purchase certificate under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the principle of implied surrender, and the interpretation of lease documents.

The assignees, of a 'tenant' who obtained purchase certificate, are in revision against concurrent findings. The path to this Court, as is usual in proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was strewn with remand orders. Two persons, viz., Ramakrishnan and Chandra Gopi, obtained assignment of a total of 2.61 acres of land in Survey No.1496/2 and 3 of Kodakara Village from one Kunjappu. Kunjappu's legal heirs are respondents 1 to 6 and 9 to 13, who are the contesting respondents.

2. The brief facts are, that, Kandu, the original landlord, had allegedly leased out the said properties by an oral lease to his sister Kunhipennu (@ Kochupennu). Kunhipennu, by Exhibit B2 bearing No.200 of 1120 M.E., sold the lease hold rights to her daughter Kochuparu and her son-in-law Kunjappu jointly. Kunjappu, in 1959 by Exhibit A2 deed No.700 of 1959, executed a fresh lease (patta-seetu) to the landlord Kandu. Whether the said lease is a fresh one in his individual name or whether it is a continuation of the lease to Kunjappu and Kochuparu is essentially the question that has to be resolved in the above case.

3. Kandu sold his jenm rights to another relative, Kochukuttan by Exhibit A1 (24.04.1959) sale deed. Kunjappu, by Exhibit A3 application dated 23.03.1970 applied to the Land Tribunal, Kodakara for a purchase certificate basing his claim on Exhibit A2 lease. That was allowed by order dated 15.10.1971. On 13.12.1973, Kochuparu expired. Kunjappu obtained Exhibit A4 purchase certificate on 21.04.1974. By separate sale deeds, Exhibits A5 dated 22.12.1979 and Exhibit A18 dated 24.12.1979, 1.75 acres and 86 cents were respectively sold to Ramakrishnan and Chandra Gopi.

4. The legal heirs of Kochuparu approached the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur in A.A.No.278 of 1980, which allowed condonation of delay of about 9 years and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal. Since the assignees were not heard, they challenged that order in C.R.P.No.633 of 1985, wherein the Appellate Authority was directed to implead them and pass fresh orders. The Appellate Authority, in A.A.No.2 of 1987, passed a remand order dated 31.12.1987. Original Petition filed, as O.P.No.5775 of 1988, confirmed the remand. The proceedings were re-numbered before the Land Tribunal, Kodungallur and then transferred to the Land Tribunal, Thrissur. The suo motu proceedings, numbered as S.M.301/2000, was allowed by the Land Tribunal. Kunjappu and Kochuparu were held to have joint tenancy and purchase certificate was directed to be issued in both their names. The Appellate Authority concurred with the view of the Land Tribunal.

5. The question as to what would be the effect of a purchase certificate granted under the KLR Act if the tenancy devolves on more than one person is no more res integra. The certificate of purchase issued after determination under the provisions of the Act is undoubtedly conclusive proof under Section 72K of the Act and the purchase certificate would definitely inure to the benefit of all co-owners. I notice that in C.R.P.633 of 1985 filed by the assignees, this Court even at that stage, noticed the contention of the assignees that the purchase certificate issued to Kunjappu, in the facts of the case, can be challenged only by filing a suit in the civil Court, as held in Velappan v. Thomas, 1979 KLT 412. This Court, however, left it to be considered by the Appellate Authority.

The Appellate Authority's remand order was challenged in O.P.No.5775 of 1988. Again it was noticed that the suit for partition was filed by certain legal heirs of Kunjappu and Kochuparu. The suit was decreed, however, subject to the result of the proceedings under the KLR Act. In the Original Petition also, this Court noticed the grievance of the assignees that the legal heirs of Kochuparu had no locus standi and observed that the question could be agitated in the appeal, A.S.No.168 of 1989. On a reading of the appellate j