- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE -560 001 2. THE TAHSILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK CHINTAMANI KOLAR DISTRICT-563 125 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ANWAR S/O LATE DAWOOD SAB AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SRI RAHAMATHULLA S/O LATE DAWOOD SAB AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. SRI INAYATHULLA S/O LATE DAWOOD SAB AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 4. SRI IQBAL S/O LATE DAWOOD SAB AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 (SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REP. VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17.07.2025) 4(a) SMT.GULAB JHAN W/O LATE IQBAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4(b) SRI SALMAN KHAN S/O LATE IQBAL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4(c) SRI MAINADIN S/O LATE IQBAL AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 4(d) SRI ATTAR S/O LATE IQBAL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS (ALL THE ABOVE 4(a) TO 4(d) ARE RESIDING AT CHINNASANDRA, 3RD BLOCK, CHINNASANDRA VILLAGE CHINNASANDRA POST, KASABA HOBLI CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 215) 5. SRI SHAFIULLA S/O LATE DAWOOD SAB AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 6. SRI ALLAH BAKASH S/O LATE DAWOOD SAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 7. SRI PYAREJAN S/O LATE PEERAN SAB AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 8. SRI CHOTE SAB S/O LATE PEERAN SAB - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 9. SMT RAJIA W/O LATE MEHABOOB SABI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 10. SRI JAVEED PASHA S/O LATE MEHABOOB SABI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/AT CHINNASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK 11. SRI AFSAR PASHA S/O GHOUSE SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT CHINNASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DILIPKUMAR.I.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R9; SRI M.S.HARISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A TO C); SRI M.N.UMASHANKAR AND SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY.L, ADVOCATES FOR R2, R5 AND R6; SRI A.S.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R8 AND R10; SRI B.R.VISWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R11) RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NOs.89/2019 AND 92/2019 AND 18/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, SITTING AT CHINTAMANI, ALLOWING THE APPEALS AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.9/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate for appellants, Sri Dilip Kumar I.S., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 9, Sri M.S. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 (a) to (c), Sri M.N. Umashankar and Sri Narasimha Murthy, learned counsels for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6, Sri A.S. Mahesha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7, 8 and 10 and Sri B.R. Vishwanath, learned counsel for respondent No.11. 2. Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants - State of Karnataka, represented by its Chief Secretary and the Tahasildar, Chintamani Taluk, Kolar District. Appellants are challenging the decree passed by the First Appellate Court and prayer in the appeal memorandum reads as under. (a) “Call for the records in R.A.No.89/2019 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Chikkaballapur, sitting at Chintamani and in O.S.No.09/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC AT Chintamani; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 (b) Set aside the common judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2021 in R.A.No.89/2019 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Chikkaballapura sitting at Chintamani, wherein reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 27.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.09/2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani. (c) Consequently, dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.9/2017 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chintamani.” 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: Sri Anwar, Sri Rahamathulla, Sri Inayathulla, Sri Iqbal, Sri Shafiullah, Sri Allah Bakash, Sri Pyarejan, Sri Chote Sab, Smt. Rajia and Sri Javed Masha filed a suit in O.S.No.9/2017 as against State of Karnataka, represented by its Chief Secretary, Tahasildar, Chintamani Taluk, Kolar District and Sri Afsar Pasha, a private party, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the following immovable properties hereinafter referred to as suit schedule properties. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 “A” schedule Land bearing Sy.No.197, New Sy.No.220/P1 measuring 4 acres assessed at Rs.8 out of which 2 acres 12.08 guntas including karab situated at Chinnasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, bounded on, East :- Land of Najeemulla Shariff West : Bangalore Road North : Land of Sanaulla Shariff South : Land of Afsar Pasha (3rd defendant) i.e., ‘B’ Schedule property “B” Schedule Land bearing Sy.No.197, new Sy.No.220/P1 measuring 4 acres assessed at Rs.8 out of which 1- 27.08 guntas including karab situated at Chinnasandra village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, bounded on, East : Land of Najeemulla Shariff West : Bangalore Road North : Land of Majaan Bi (A Schedule Property) South : Kadapa Road” 4. Plaintiff laid the claim in respect of suit schedule properties by contending that Smt. Majanbi, had a grant of the suit properties by the Government and thereafter the plaintiffs - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 are lawful owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ property having succeeded to Smt. Majanbi. 5. Defendant No.3 filed a counter claim praying that he is the lawful owner and possession of 1 acre 27 guntas of land which is mentioned in ‘B’ schedule property. 6. It is further contended that Dawood Sab S/o Usman Sab had eight sons namely, Peeran Sab, Anwar, Mehaboob Sab, Rahamathulla, Inayathulla, Iqbal, Shafiulla and Allabakash. 7. Suit schedule land is the agriculture land comprised of four acres in Sy.No.197 of Chinnasandra Village and it was in possession of said Usman Sab, who is the paternal grandfather of plaintiff Nos.1 to 6. Said Usman Sab was in possession of the property from the year 1954-55 and he has been cultivating the suit land unauthorisedly. 8. It is further contention of the plaintiffs that Government had imposed TT fine for the year 1954-55 to 1963-64. Plaintiffs placed on record to establish their possession by placing Sarahaddu Thakthe. After the death of Usman Sab, his son Dawood Sab who is the father of plaintiff - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 Nos.1 to 6, continued in the possession of the suit land by paying TT fine imposed by the Government. 9. Plaintiffs further contended that RTC Extracts for the years 1965-66 to 1969-70 shows that the Dawood Sab was cultivating the land, as his name is found in column No.12 (2) of RTC extract. Plaintiffs and ancestors were thus in possession of the suit property from the year 1954-55. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 6 being the children of Dawood Sab and plaintiff Nos.7 and 8 being the sons of Late Pareen Sab, son of Dawood Sab and plaintiff No.9 is the wife and plaintiff No.10, who is the son of Late Mehaboob Sab, who is another son of Dawood Sab. 10. After death of Dawood Sab, his wife Majanbi who is the mother of plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 applied for grant of the suit property in her name. Taking note of long possession of the suit property by Dawood Sab and his father Usman Sab, Member of Legislative Assembly, Chinthamani constituency forwarded the application filed by Majanbi on 08.08.1979 for grant of the suit property along with the copies of the documents. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 11. Based on such representation, revenue authorities considered the application of Majanbi and granted the land in favour of Smt. Majanbi and a saguvali chit came to be issued on 28.09.1983 for grant of four acres of suit property in favour of Majanbi, vide UCLND No.14/77-78. The Tahasildar, Chinthamani Taluk wrote a letter on 04.05.1983 to the said Member of Legislative Assembly, informing that suit schedule land was granted to Smt. Majanbi. 12. Plaintiffs placed on record darakast register extract and in the said register at serial number 534, grant of Majanbi is reflected. 13. It is further contended that thereafter Majanbi enjoyed the property and after her death, it is the plaintiffs who are in enjoyment of the suit property. 14. It is further contended that there was a dispute between Afsar Pasha, son of Ghouse Sheriff of Chinnasandra and the plaintiffs and there was a claim and counter claim. The claim of Afsar Pasha was that suit schedule land was not granted to Majanbi, but it was granted to Sri Anwar and he is in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 possession of the property. In that regard, plaintiffs filed a suit and Afsar Pasha filed counter claim. 15. It is pertinent to note that neither the defendant No.1 nor the defendant No.2, though represented by the Government Pleader, did not choose to file any written statement before the trial Court, nor contested the suit by cross examining the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants. 16. Based on the written statement and the counter claim filed by defendant No.3, trial Judge raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 17. Being aggrieved by the same, appeal came to be filed by the plaintiffs in R.A.No.89/2019, whereas dismissing the counter claim, Afsar Pasha filed R.A.No.92/2019. There were also two more appeals filed in respect of O.S.No.168/2008, wherein defendant No.3 in the suit, had filed a suit for declaration and injunction wherein trial Judge has granted only an order of injunction. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 18. Being aggrieved by the same, Afsar Pasha filed R.A.No.19/2020 and defendants, Rahamathulla and Shafiulla have filed R.A.No.18/2020, challenging the grant of permanent injunction. 19. All the four appeals were considered by the First Appellate Court together having regard to the fact that Suit property in all the appeals were one and the same. 20. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs in R.A.No.89/2019 and also allowed the counter claim in R.A.No.92/2019. 21. Appeal filed by Afsar Pasha in R.A.No.19/2020 was dismissed and so also the appeal filed by Rahamathulla and Shafiulla in R.A.No.18/2020 was allowed. 22. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant - Afsar Pasha further persuaded the matter and it has become final. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 23. It is the Government and Tahasildar, who have now preferred the present second appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law:  The impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and as such liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.  It is submitted that it is the Plaintiffs who filed suit for declaration of their title in respect of the subject property on the ground that their grandfather and there after their father who were in unauthorized occupation and that they paid T.T. fine in respect of the said alleged unauthorized occupation. Further, the Plaintiffs have contended that the subject land came to be granted to their mother Maajanbi, and that grant certificate was issued in her favour. Prior to filing the suit, children of Maajanbi sought revenue entries/mutation entry in their favour by contending that grant is made in favour of Maajanbi, and that revenue entry be effected in their favour in respect of Sy.No.197 (New Sy.No.220/P1) as their mother Maajanbi passed away leaving plaintiffs as her legal as representatives. The said revenue entries were sought without producing original grant certificate before revenue authorities. Defendant No.2 Tahsildar before whom enquiry was conducted plaintiffs failed to produce the original grant certificate. defendant No.2 after due verification of all - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 the relevant records and documents maintained in their office found that State Government had not issued any Grant certificate to Maajanbi in respect of either Sy.No.197 or in respect of any other Survey Number. Grant Register, Saguvali Issue Register and proceedings register maintained in the office of the Tahsildar did not indicate any Grant made in favour of the aforesaid Maajanbi. In the absence of any Grant in favour of Maajanbi, coupled with the fact that the Plaintiffs failed to produce the original Grant certificate, Tahsildar rejected Plaintiffs request for revenue entry in their favour, which came to be confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner before whom appeal was filed, and also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner before whom Revision petition was filed, and finally before the Hon'ble KAT before which Revision Petition was filed by the Plaintiffs. All the revenue authorities found that there was no Grant made in favour of Maajanbi. The orders passed by the revenue authorities attained finality long back. If at all Plaintiffs were aggrieved, they ought to have questioned the orders passed by the revenue authorities before appropriate forum, which they had not done. Taking note of the same, Hon'ble Trial Court dismissed the suit. But, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, without any reason or justification allowed the appeal which ought to have been dismissed for the reason that the order passed by the revenue authorities had attained finality long back. In factual circumstances such as this, it is the revenue - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 authorities who have jurisdiction to consider the factum of issue of Grant certificate and such other incidental documents pertaining to the aspect whether any Grant is made. After thorough inspection and verification of the records, revenue authorities found that no Grant certificate had been issued in favour of Maajanbi. Hon'ble Appellate Court, without considering this aspect of the matter erred in allowing the appeal which ought to have been dismissed.  It is submitted that, the question pertaining to issue of grant certificate is a matter to be considered by the revenue authorities in a duly instituted proceeding under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and this exercise is already undertaken by the plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs miserably failed to establish that any grant was made in their favour. Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in its order dated:30.03.2016 not only dismissed the revision petition filed by the plaintiffs, but also observed that if grant certificate made in favour of plaintiffs mother Maajanbi is available the plaintiffs could produced the same before the Assistant Commissioner and seek revenue authorities in their favour in accordance with law. This liberty was specifically given to the plaintiffs by the Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The order passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, having attained finality long back, and the plaintiffs having accepted the order passed by Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, were - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 required to duly comply with the same. In the earlier proceedings before the revenue authorities, plaintiffs could not succeed for the reason that they failed to produce the original grant certificate, and the Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal granted liberty to plaintiffs to produce the original grant certificate before the Assistant Commissioner and seek revenue entry in their favour, if they so desire. But the plaintiffs have neither challenged the order passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal nor did they avail the liberty granted to them. Instead without any reason or justification plaintiffs filed suit for declaration against State Government in respect of the aforesaid gomal land, which the Hon'ble trial court was pleased to take note of the same and dismissed the suit. Whereas, Hon'ble Appellate Court erred in completely ignoring this aspect of the matter and further erred in decreeing the suit on the ground State Government has failed to prove that suit land is not granted to the plaintiffs. Such an approach on the part of Hon'ble First Appellate Court is illegal arbitrary and inconsistent and as such the order passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court is liable to the set aside.  State Government most respectfully submits that, the alleged grant certificate produced to before the Hon'ble trial court is a concocted and created document. In the written statement filed by the State Government, a specific contention is taken that no grant certificate is issued to plaintiffs mother - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 Maajanbi. Whether grant certificate is issued to Maajanbi or not is a question to be decided before the revenue authorities and not in a civil suit. Such an adjudication is totally alien in any civil proceeding in a civil suit. Civil court has no jurisdiction to try the said aspect of the matter. Hon'ble trial court was completely in justification in dismissing the suit. Whereas, Hon'ble Appellate court, being completely misled, has gone on tangent to conclude that suit land is granted to Plaintiffs mother Maajanbi. This conclusion drawn by Hon'ble Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and without any justification. Impugned judgment passed by Hon'ble Appellate Court is liable to be set aside on this ground.  The Plaintiffs produced a certain Grant Certificate which is a created document and a false document. Plaintiffs contended that suit land was granted to their mother Maajanbi, whereas, third defendant who supported the plaintiffs had contended that suit property is granted to First plaintiff Anwar. These contentions are not only contradictory but mutually destructive, which aspect is rightly observed by Hon'ble Trial court and adverse inference is drawn by the Hon'ble Trial court in this regard. Infact, two Grant Certificates are produced without providing clarity as to which of the same is genuine and could be accepted. But the fact of the matter of the matter is both the aforesaid alleged Grant certificates are created documents. Ignoring these shortcomings and falsities in the Plaintiffs claims and contentions, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 decreeing the suit would be detrimental to the interest of the state government, as the suit lands are gomal lands belonging to state Government, which aspect is completely ignored by Hon'ble Appellate court. Even on this ground, the impugned judgment passed by the Hon'ble Appellate court is liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court.  It is submitted that Plaintiffs produced an alleged grant certificate which is marked as Exhibit P4. In the said grant certificate, grant number is shown as LND RU 14/1977-78, dated:28.09.1983. On perusal of the grant register and saguvali issue register, it is forthcoming that the aforesaid Saguvali chit order number LND RU 14/1977-78 pertains to Sy.Nos., 19, 62, 45 & 75 and does not pertain to survey number 197 of Chinnasandra Village. In the aforesaid Exhibit P-4 Grant Certificate produced in the evidence of Plaintiffs date is shown as 28.09.1983 which is false and incorrect. No such Grant is made on 28.09.1983. As such plaintiffs are entitled for any declaration that they are the owners of Sy.No.197 of Chinnasandra Village which belongs to State Government. Plaintiffs have played fraud by indulging in acts of creating documents and making use of the same before revenue authorities and before the Hon'ble courts. For such acts of plaintiffs, it is absolutely in necessary that this Hon'ble court to be pleased to take judicial note of the said questionable conduct of the plaintiffs and appropriate action be initiated against them. Even on this ground, the impugned - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 judgment and decree passed by Hon'ble Appellate Court requires to be set aside.  It is submitted that the Hon'ble court erred in concluding that State Government failed to prove their contention that the suit land is not granted to plaintiff by adducing their evidence in the matter, ignoring the fact that plaintiff failed to prove the veracity of the two Grant Certificates which were produced by plaintiffs on one hand and third defendant on the other. In a suit for declaration, it is for the plaintiffs to plead and prove their contentions, if they are to succeed. Plaintiffs have to stand or fall on the strength of their own case and not on the shortcomings on the other side. In a factual situation such as this, it was required and expected of the plaintiffs to ensure that the Saguvali chit issue Register and Grant Register are summoned and relevant entries are marked as evidence to request the Hon'ble court to pass a judgment and Decree in their favour. When such an exercise is not undertaken by the plaintiffs, Hon'ble Appellate court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the plaintiffs, moreso when subject land is a Gomal land belonging to the state Government which is a public property. It is only when plaintiffs discharge their burden in proving the veracity of Grant Certificate that defendants evidence was of some consequence. But Hon'ble court has granted judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendants have not adduced their evidence. This - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 approach of the Hon'ble court in requiring the defendant State to prove the negative is contrary to law, and impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble court. Substantial questions of law 1. Whether Hon’ble Appellate Court is justified in ignoring the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by Hon’ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition number 79/2007 which was rightly considered by the Hon’ble trial Court ? 2. Whether Hon’ble Appellate Court is justified in not taking note of the fact that two separate Grant Certificates are produced by plaintiffs and Defendant No.3 which were inconsistent and contradictory to each other, more so when Hon'ble Trial court took judicial note of the same, and had drawn adverse inference ? 3. Whether Hon'ble Appellate court was justified in setting aside the judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble Trial court without any basis or justification ? 4. Whether Hon'ble Appellate court was justified in upsetting the findings of Hon'ble Trial court, without any change in circumstances, and without any valid reason for the same?” 24. Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate, reiterating the grounds urged in the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 appeal memorandum contended that there is no grant order or issue of saguvali chit either in the name of Majanbi or in the name of Anwar Pasha, who is the vendor of defendant No.3 Afsar Pasha. 25. He would contend that the alleged saguvali chits and the grant order are fake and forged documents, whereby valuable rights of the Government has been lost and both the Courts did not choose to consider the veracity or genuineness of the saguvali chits relayed on by the plaintiffs or the defendant No.3, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 26. He would further contend that valuable Government property worth Rs.30 crores is being swindled away by the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 by concocting and creating false and fictitious documents which have been placed on record and learned Judges in both the Courts did not bestow their attention as to the genuineness of those documents. 27. First Appellate Court allowing the appeal of both the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 would only go to show that all - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 those parties have colluded to cheat the Government and thus, sought for admitting the appeal. 28. Per contra, learned counsels representing the respondents, in unison, opposed the appeal grounds and supported the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court. 29. They would further contend that appellants being the Government and Tahasildar, were party in the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the appellants did not file the written statement before the trial Court nor contested the suit by cross examining the plaintiffs or the defendants. 30. They would also contend that after the suit came to be decreed, appeals were filed, wherein the respondents - State and the Tahasildar, who are the appellants before this Court did not choose to place on record any documents nor contest the appeals on merits by placing material evidence on record that the suit properties are the Government lands and the saguvali chits and grant order are in favour of Majanbi. Therefore, they have no right to file the second appeal. 31. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 32. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that for the reasons best known to the Government, they did not contest the suit in the Court below by filing written statement or at least cross examining the plaintiff and defendant witnesses. 33. Further, before the First Appellate Court also the appellant did not place any material on record to establish that the property is the Government property. 34. When there is a specific averment made in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs that there was an order of grant pursuant to the recommendation made by the Member of Legislative Assembly, Chinthamani and a letter came to be written by the Tahasildar in favorably disposing of the application filed by Majanbi, Government taking a stand before this Court now that there was no grant order, there was no signature of the Tahasildar in the grant order and therefore, the saguvali chit is a concocted document cannot be countenanced for the first time, that too before this Court in the second appeal, as the scope of this Court is to consider the question of law and not on the facts. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 35. Further, since there was no appeal filed by the Government before the First Appellate Court nor any documents being placed on record before the First Appellate Court, appellants cannot maintain the second appeal before this Court. 36. If at all the appellants were aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the remedy for the Government lies elsewhere inasmuch as there was no contest at all and there was no plea raised by the Government – appellants before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court that the suit lands are the Government lands and for which the plaintiff or the vendor of the defendant No.3 Anwar Pasha had no right whatsoever. 37. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appeal needs to be dismissed. 38. However, if the rights of the Government are at jeopardy, Government is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. If any such intended action is taken, - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36970 RSA No. 1676 of 2022 needless to emphasise that the respondents will have their available defenses to be canvassed in accordance with law. 39. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR