JUDGMENT A.H. Joshi, J.-Order passed in inventory proceedings in favour of the appellants have been re-opened as the court has allowed applications at Exhs. 13. 20 and 25. 2. These orders are challenged in the present appeal. 3. Present respondent No. 2 Parvati Baburao Gaokar moved an application seeking re-opening of inventory proceeding. Crucial averments contained therein read as follows: 7. That the applicant has committed fraud by concealing the names of the legal heirs/legal representatives left by the deceased and not citing the same in these proceedings. The applicant is not the sole legal heir as alleged by him in the proceedings. (quoted from page 34 of paper book) 4. Present respondent No. 3 Harischandra Babu Raikar moved an application seeking re-opening of inventory proceeding. Crucial averments contained therein read as follows: 6. That the applicant has committed fraud by concealing the names of the legal heirs/legal representatives left by the deceased d and not citing the same in these proceedings. The applicant is not the sole legal heir as alleged in the proceedings. (quoted from page 40 of paper book) 5. The appellant herein who had replied and objected the applications did not deny the relationship pleaded by present respondents. All that is stated in the objection is that no evidence is produced to prove the relationship. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant took exception to the impugned order inter alia urging that by virtue of P.C.C.P., re-opening of concluded inventory proceedings is allowed only by a suit and not by filing application before the same authority. 7. The appellant has further urged that the case does not fall under Article 771 (2) of P.C.C.P. 8. Translation of Article 771 is quoted below: Review of any decision which has become fkal may be applied for only on anyone of the following grounds : (1) When a decision is based on a false document or judicial act and this issue was not considered in the proceedings when the decision was given or when in a final judgment or order the court holds that the depositions or reports of experts, which have affected the decision are false. (2) When a new document is produced which was not in the possession or power of the party or the party did not know about its existence and such document is itself sufficient to cancel the evidence on which the decision is based. (2) When a new document is produced which was not in the possession or power of the party or the party did not know about its existence and such document is itself sufficient to cancel the evidence on which the decision is based. (3) When the admission withdrawal or compromise on which the judgment is based is revoked or there is a valid ground for revoking the same. (4) When the admission withdrawal or compromise is null due to lack of mandate or insufficiency of powers of the attorney, unless the order ratifying the partition has already been personally served on the principal. (5) When the proceedings went ex parte and the party was not cited or citation was null. (6) When the judgment is contrary to another judgment which constituted res judicata and the party proves that he had no knowledge of the judgment during the pendency of the proceedings. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant further urged that his argument is supported by the view taken in reported judgment Devidas painguincar v. Rekha Babu Naik, 2007 (1) Bom CR. 1. 10. The learned trial judge based on evidence which had come before it and which had gone unrebutted found substance in the application and allowed the same. 11. Perusal of record reveals that the learned trial judge has observed in relation to the documents produced by plaintiff as follows : The interested parties have produced following documents to prove their relationship with deceased Narayan Radio Gaonkar and Smt. Abolem Narayan Gaonkar (a) death certificate of Sukdo Radio Gaonkar, Exbt. 17, (b) Death certificate of Malu Radio Gaonkar (to show that Sukdo and Malu are brothers of Narayan Radio Gaonkar), Death Certificate of Babu Govind Raikar. (e) Birth certificate of Harishchandra Babu Raikar. (0 Will at page 3. shows that brother of Abolem is Babu Govind Raikar (shows that Harischandra Babu Raikar is the son of brother of deceased Abolem). (g) Election Identity card of Gopal Malu Gaonkar (shows that said Gopal Molu Gaonkar is the son of Malu Radio Suabare Gaonkar who is the brother of deceased Narayan Radio Gaonkar. as explained above. (h) election Identity card of Minica alias Parvati Baburao (Bablo) Gaonkar. (i) Birth certificate of Shivanand Baburao Gaonkar (this certificate shows that Baburao and Minica (Parvati) are husband a and wife. as explained above. (h) election Identity card of Minica alias Parvati Baburao (Bablo) Gaonkar. (i) Birth certificate of Shivanand Baburao Gaonkar (this certificate shows that Baburao and Minica (Parvati) are husband a and wife. being the parents of said Shivanand and that Sukto Gaonkar is the father of Baburao (Hence it is prima facie proved that Parvati (interested Party) is the wife of Baburao Gaonkar who is the son of Sukto Radio Gaonkar (brother of deceased Narayan Radio Gaonkar) (quoted from page 19 and 21 of paper book) 12. The findings contained in the impugned order are thus based on evidence and material on record. 13. Attempt of the appellant is to rely on technicalities than on merit. If appellant has rightful case he may succeed even after the inventory is re-opened. 14. The submission of reliance on Article 771 is totally baseless since it is prima facie made out that the co-sharers though known to the appellant were not made parties. 15. The judgment relied upon by the appellants in the case of Devidas Painguincar is not rendered on Article 771. Moreover, the finality attached to judgment in partition proceedings is primarily seen provided by Article 1427, and one amongst the grounds for re-opening in clause (2) of Article 771. Language of Article 1427 makes it explicitly clear and it provides for additional grounds for reopening. 16. The power under Article 1427 is in the nature of review and hence certain guidance is available in 47 of C.P.C. 1908. 17. This Court is satisfied that the order was sought by playing fraud. Fraud on the court is always a sufficient ground to set aside a judgment. 18. The order does not need interference and appeal is d dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.