JUDGMENT M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue separate purchase certificates with respect to portions of property when the property is in the joint possession of the petitioners and the third respondent. Contention of the petitioners is that the Land Tribunal ought to have issued joint purchase certificate to them and the third respondent and that the division of the property is in the realm of the trial Court. 2. In C.R.P. 942 of 1987 this Court held that the third respondent is entitled to half of the western portion of the property scheduled in the O.A. (i.e. 1/4th of the entire property) and that the petitioners are only entitled to the remaining property. Making the above position clear the Land Tribunal was directed to issue purchase certificate to the parties. 3. Ext. P2 petition was filed by the petitioners before the Land Tribunal for obtaining purchase certificate for the western half of the property in their favour as well as in favour of the third respondent. Land Tribunal in Ext.P3 stated that the Authorised Officer was deputed to inspect the plot and draw up a plan, that he inspected the property after giving notice to the parties and identified the plots and that revised certificates of purchase were issued to them. 4. Contention of the petitioners is that the Land Tribunal ought to have issued a joint purchase certificate with regard to the western portion of the property to them and the third respondent should not have embarked upon the division of the property overlooking its lack of jurisdiction to do so under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 5. Admittedly 60 cents of land on the western portion of the property is in the joint possession of the petitioners and the third respondent. The only course open to the Land Tribunal was to have issued joint purchase certificate in favour of the petitioners and the third respondent. After obtaining joint purchase certificate third respondent could have filed a suit for partition before the civil court. Third respondent cannot adopt the shortcut method by approaching the Land Tribunal to make a division of the property and obtain purchase certificate for the plot allotted to him. After obtaining joint purchase certificate third respondent could have filed a suit for partition before the civil court. Third respondent cannot adopt the shortcut method by approaching the Land Tribunal to make a division of the property and obtain purchase certificate for the plot allotted to him. Kerala Land Reforms Act does not empower the Land Tribunal to effect partition of the property among the various sharers and grant purchase certificates to them. In a case where several persons are jointly interested in a property Land Tribunal can only grant joint purchase certificate in their favour and cannot issue separate purchase certificates for different portions of the property. Land Tribunal cannot make any division of the properties and make allotments to the different sharers. To do that civil Court alone has jurisdiction. Petitioners have asserted that the Revenue Inspector has demarcated the best portion of the property to the third respondent. Only in a properly instituted suit for partition the civil Court will be in a position to effect partition by metes and bounds and taking into account all equitable considerations. As Land Tribunal is not invested with any such powers of a civil Court, it can only issue joint purchase certificate in favour of the petitioners and third respondent and cannot direct the Revenue Inspector to effect partition of the property and direct allotments to them and grant purchase certificates in respect of separate plots allotted to each of them. The Land Tribunal by issuing purchase certificates with regard to 30 cents of land which formed part of 60 cents of the western portion over which petitioners and the third respondent have joint right illegally usurped the jurisdiction of the civil Court. 6. The first respondent is directed to cancel the purchase certificate issued in favour of the third respondent which is referred to in Ext.P3 communication and to issue joint purchase certificate in favour of the petitioners and the third respondent. O.P. is allowed with no order as to costs.