The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the Purchase Certificate and the discussion of the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

The 5th respondent in the Civil Revision Petition [for brevity "CRP"] is in review here and the parties are referred to as per their status in the CRP.

2. The issue raised and decided in the CRP was as to whether there was a joint-tenancy as decided by the lower authorities constituted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [for brevity "the Act"]. The tenancy initially, crystallised into a Purchase Certificate in favour of one Kunjappu. The landlord originally was one Kandu, who leased out the land to his sister Kunhipennu. Kunhipennu sold her leasehold rights to her daughter Kochuparu and her son-in-law Kunjappu. Kunhappu later on executed a fresh lease with the landlord Kandu. Kandu sold his jenm rights to one Kochukuttan and Kunjappu filed application before the Land Tribunal, with the said Kochukuttan as landlord, seeking a Purchase Certificate on the strength of the lease executed with Kandu.

3. The revision petitioners were assignees of Kunjappu and the respondents were the legal heirs of Kunjappu and Kochuparu, who claimed that Kunjappu did not have any exclusive right over the property and though the Purchase Certificate was issued in favour of Kunjappu alone, the same has its origin in the joint leasehold rights of Kunjappu and Kochuparu.

4. The proceedings with respect to issuance of the Purchase Certificate to Kunjappu was challenged before the Appellate Authority with a delay of nine years, in which there was a remand. There were parallel proceedings also insofar as a suit for partition filed by the 7th respondent herein, wherein there was also a prayer for cancellation of the lease deed executed by Kunjappu with the landlord Kandu and the sale deeds executed by Kunjappu in favour of the revision petitioners. The suit for partition was decreed, which stood affirmed in appeal; however, the question of joint-tenancy was left to be decided by the Land Tribunal.

5. This Court, in the order under review, expressed its foreboding as to the question of implied surrender of lease being left to the Land Tribunal while appropriately it could have been dealt with by the Civil Court itself. The sustainability of the claim of Kochuparu having impliedly surrendered the lease, when Kunjappu is said to have obtained a fresh lease from Kandu, was hence looked into, following the decision in Balakrishnan Nair v. Radha Amma and Others [1987 (1) KLT 195]. This Court proceeded, despite the reservation expressed, to consider as to whether the findings of the Land Tribunal, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, negativing the contention of implied surrender was correct or not. Based on the discussions in the order under review, the order of the Land Tribunal, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, was set aside. The Purchase Certificate issued in the name of Kunjappu was found to be sustainable in law and on facts. As a consequence, the sale deed executed in favour of the revision petitioners also stood sustained.

6. The review petitioner/5th respondent seeks for a re-hearing in the matter on the ground that "certain aspects which ought to have been highlighted during the argument could not be done" (Ground-A). It is also to be noticed that the review petitioner herein has approached this Court through another lawyer who had not argued the case on behalf of the 5th respondent when the CRP was heard.

7. In Ground-B, the review petitioner relies on certain findings in the judgment in A.S.No.168 of 1989 to contend that since no appeal was filed from the above judgment, nothing remains to be adjudicated insofar as the rights of the parties. However, this Court had specifically noticed that the Civil Appellate Court had left the matter of implied surrender of lease to be considered by the Land Tribunal and the partition was made specifically subject to the finding of the Land Tribunal. Hence, no sustainable ground can be raised on any of the findings in the judgment in appeal from that suit. Further the review petitioner was a party