IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.42084 OF 2014 (KVOA) BETWEEN: SRI MADAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS: 1. HYMAVATHI, W/O LATE SRI.K.MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.146/19, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST A CROSS, BEHIND ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE NEW MADIWALA, BANGALORE-560 068. 2. SRI.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE SRI.K.MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SINCE DEAD, (NOTE - DIED ISSUELESS, ALL OTHER LR'S ARE ON RECORD) 3 . SRI.M.UMASHEKAR, S/O LATE SRI.K.MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LRS 3(a) SMT SUJATHA T N, W/O LATE SRI M UMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 3(b) VINDYA SHEKAR, D/O LATE SRI M UMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.9B, - 2 - 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, GOWRAVNAGAR, J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. 4. SRI.M.RAJASHEKAR, S/O LATE SRI.K.MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 5. SRI.K.JYOTAPPA, S/O LATE SRI.MANIYELLAPPA @ KAKAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 5(a) SMT RENUKAMMA J, D/O JYOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 5(b) SMT LINGAMMA, D/O JYOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 5(c) SMT GOWRAMMA, D/O JYOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 5(d) SRI MUNIRAJU H J, S/O JYOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 5(e) SRI HARISH, S/O JYOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 5(f) SMT SHANTAKUMARI, D/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 5(g) SMT SUDHARANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HENNAGARA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 562106. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI BHARGAV G, ADVOCATE) - 3 - AND: 1. SMT THIMMAKKA, D/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA, MAJOR, 2. SRI.M.JYOTAPPA @ JYOTI, S/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR, 3. SRI.JYOTAPPA, S/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA, MAJOR, 4. SRI.MUNIYAPPA, S/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 4(a) SMT LALITHAMMA C, W/O LATE M MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 4(b) SMT H M MANJULA, D/O LATE M MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 4(c) SRI BHARATH M, S/O LATE M MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 4(d) SMT MEGHAVATHI, D/O LATE M MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT H HOSAHALLI, JIGNI HOBLI, HENNAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU- 560105. 5. SMT.CHIKKA AMMAYYA, D/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA, MAJOR, - 4 - SRI M PILLAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 6. SMT.RENUKAMMA W/O LATE SRI.M.PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 7. MR.PRAJWAL S/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, 8. MR.CHANDAN SAGAR S/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, R-7 AND R-8 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT.RENUKAMMA, RESPONDENT NO.6 HEREIN. 9. SRI.MUNIRAJU S/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR 10. SMT.CHINNAMMA D/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR 11. SMT.VARALAKSHMI D/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR 12. SRI.NARAYANASWAMY S/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA MAJOR 13. SMT.PAPAMMA *W/O SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA, MAJOR (SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.13 IS DEAD THE LR'S ARE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3, THE RESPONDENT NO.5 AND THE RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 12 ARE ALREADY ON *Page No.4 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 19.08.2025. - 5 - RECORD EVEN AS PER THE ORDER DATED 04/08/2023 IS ALSO RECORDED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, AND NO OTHER LR'S ARE LEFT BEHIND) 14. THE TAHASILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK AND TOWN, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT PIN-562106 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K N PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI B RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R12, SRI K P YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R14 V/O/DT: 4/08/2023 R1 TO R3, R4(A TO D), R5 AND R9 TO R12 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R13) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DT.12.2.13, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.14-TAHSILADAR, ANEKAL, & DT.17.7.14, PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. SITTING AT ANEKAL, IN MISC.APPEAL NO.20/13, VIDE ANN-K & L RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16TH JULY, 2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 6 - CAV ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 12.02.2013 passed by the Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk, as well as the order dated 17.07.2014, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.20/2013 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. In terms of the order dated 17.07.2014, the learned District Judge while dismissing the appeal, has affirmed the order dated 12.02.2013 passed by the Tahasildar wherein the Tahasildar has re-granted 02 acres 16 guntas of land in Sy. No.48 of Hennagara Ammanikere Village in favour of Papamma w/o late Muniswamappa. Since Muniswamappa is no more, his legal representatives are now on record as respondents No.1 to 13. In terms of the impugned order, the petitioners’ predecessor Muniyellappa’s claim for grant of 1 acre 9 guntas in aforementioned survey number is rejected. 3. Since, the petitioners’ predecessor Muniyellappa had filed application for regrant of land measuring 1 acre 9 guntas, the petitioners’ claim has to be considered only to - 7 - the extent of 1 acre 9 guntas and not for the entire extent of 2 acres 16 guntas in Sy.No.48 referred to above. 4. Initially the property in dispute was granted to Muniyellappa, the predecessor of petitioners who had filed an application for regrant of 1 acre 9 gunta in Survey No.48. Muniyellappa had filed the application on 30.12.1970, on the premise that the aforementioned land is Neeraganti inam land attached to the village office. Muniyellappa claimed for re-grant of 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.48 claiming to be the grandson of Munielliga who is said to be one of 7 barwardars (Village Office Holders). 5. Father of respondents No.1 to 12, and husband of respondent No.13–Muniswamy filed application on 20.01.1973, claming re-grant of 2 acres 16 guntas (full extent of Sy.No.48) based on the sale deed dated 03.11.1963 as can be noticed from the re-grant application. In the said application in column No.5 relating to nature of interest, it is stated as purchased by barwardar. After few years, (after the remand of the matter in 2005), legal representatives of applicant Muniswamy made a claim that the land was service inam land in possession of Linga, as - 8 - service inamdar and Muniswamy is claimed to be the grandson of Linga from Linga's son Mariga @ Gaddada Pillaga. 6. Vide order dated 31.07.1981, the land was granted to petitioners’ predecessor – Muniyellappa. Challenging the said order, M.A.No.6/1984 was filed by the legal representatives of Muniswamappa. The said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. 7. On a fresh enquiry, vide order dated 27.03.1995, again the land was re-granted to Muniyellappa. The said order was the subject matter of the appeal in M.A.No.34/1995. The appeal was dismissed on 21.04.2001. Respondents No.1 to 13 filed W.P.No.27445/2001 challenging the said order. This Court has set-aside the order dated 27.03.1995 and the order dated 21.04.2001 and the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. 8. W.A.No.3143/2005 was filed challenging the order passed in W.P.No.27445/2001. The said writ appeal was dismissed on 12.01.2011 confirming the order of remand, passed in W.P.No.27445/2001. - 9 - 9. After the remand, the Tahsildar in terms of the impugned order dated 12.02.2013 re-granted the land in favour of respondents No.1 to 13. The petitioners questioned the said order in M.A.No.20/2013 and said appeal was dismissed confirming the order dated 12.02.2013 passed by the Tahsildar. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents and also the learned counsel on record for the respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions: - The petitioners are the descendants of Muniyellappa. Muniyellappa was the inamdar of 'Neeraganti service inam'. Muniyellappa filed the application on 30.12.1970 seeking re- grant of the land which was attached to 'Neeraganti' service. Muniyellappa and his predecessors-in-title were carrying out Neeraganti service and they were in possession of the land, more particularly, on the cut off date i.e., 01.02.1963 and as such, descendants of Muniyellappa are eligible for re-grant. - 10 - -Muniswamy, the predecessor of contesting respondents did not discharge Neeraganti service, as such, Muniswamy or his descendants are ineligible to claim re- grant of Neeraganti inam lands. -The Tahasildar as well as the learned District Judge did not notice that the genealogy on which the respondents based their claim marked at Ex.D11 is concocted and name of Muniswamy is introduced by interpolation. In Ex.P3 - the family tree, the name of Muniswamy is not found and Ex.P3 is completely overlooked by the Trial Court. - The status of Muniswamy, the person who applied for re-grant as son of Mariga is seriously disputed by the petitioners. Without there being any basis to hold that Muniswamy is son of Mariga, the Tahasildar on the assumption that applicant Muniswamy is the grand-son of Linga through his son Mariga, proceeded to grant the land in favour of Muniswamy’s wife on the application submitted by Muniswamy. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further urged that; - 11 - - Ex.D5, the record of rights for the year 1961-62, reveals as to who was in possession of the property as on the cut-off date, is completely overlooked by the Tahasildar as well as the learned District Judge. -Muniswamy who sought re-grant moved an application for re-grant on the premise that he purchased the land from Neeraganti Munithana in the year 1963. This claim that he has purchased property itself would indicate that the purchaser was not holding the land as service inamdar as such, the impugned orders have to be set-aside. Moreover the sale of 1963 is not valid as the property had vested in the State as the Inam Abolition Act come into force by 1963. - Muniswamy filed application for re-grant based on registered sale deed of the year 1963, and in the re-grant application dated 20.01.1973 filed by Muniswamy, there is no reference to claim as Barwardar of the land bearing Survey No.48. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners to substantiate the contention that the petitioners’ predecessor did possess the property bearing Sy.No.48 as service inam holder has drawn attention to the additional documents - 12 - namely the extract of index of land record, and extract of khata of Sy.No.48. Referring to these documents, it is urged that the petitioners’ predecessor is eligible for re-grant. 14. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 13 raised the following contentions: - The genealogy chart at Ex.D11 is duly established as it reflects the names of all the persons who were having Neeraganti service inam rights and family tree is signed by the petitioners’ predecessors. Name of Linga, the ancestor of contesting respondents is found in the said document. - In Ex.'D6', the index of land register extract, Linga's name is found as Neeraganti inamdar. Name of Munielliga the petitioners' predecessor is also found in the said register. - Ex.P3, the family tree relied on by the petitioners is produced for first time in the year *1981, whereas Ex.D11, the family tree relied on by the contesting respondents is produced around *1971. -Documents sought to be produced by way of additional documents are not produced on earlier occasion and the documents do not inspire confidence. The entry recording the name of 'Muniyellappa' is found in a different *Page No.12 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 19.08.2025. - 13 - hand writing in the index of land records, when compared to the hand writing of remaining entries. Said index of land record does not reveal the year in which the said entries are made. - In the Record of rights produced at Ex.D5, which is for the year 1960 and 1961, Muniyellappa’s name is not mentioned though there is an entry as "KAKA". Though it is urged Muniyellappa was also called as "KAKA", there is no acceptable evidence to conclude that "KAKA" and Muniyellappa are one and the same. 15. Learned Senior counsel would further contend that the petitioners’ predecessors made a claim for grant of 1/7th share Neeraganti inam lands. And in all, 08 acres and 5 guntas are allotted to Muniyellappa and his son Madappa. On earlier occasion, the predecessors of the petitioners did not file the application for re-grant of Sy.No.48, the subject matter of the present petition, and this would indicate that they were not in possession of this particular land as village office holder. 16. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 14 - 17. It is an admitted fact that one Munitana was the Neeraganti Service Inam Holder. He had 7 sons. The petitioners claim that they are the descendants of one of the sons of Munitana by name Munielliga. The contesting respondents claim that they are the descendants of one of the sons of Munitana by name Linga. The contesting respondents do not dispute that the petitioners are descendants of propositus Munitana through Munielliga. However, the petitioners dispute the contesting respondents' claim that they are the descendants of Munitana through Linga. 18. As far as the contention that the application seeking re-grant filed by Muniswamy does not refer to the status as Barwardar and applicant Muniswamy is claiming right only based on the sale deed, thus, he is not eligible for re-grant of service inam land is concerned, this Court is of the view that if the applicant Muniswamy is the legal representative of a Barwardar, then, notwithstanding omission to mention about the right as inamdar or Barwardar, the claim for regrant can be considered. - 15 - 19. It is also to be noticed that the application filed in 1973 by Muniswamy seeking re-grant contains a statement in column No.5 which pertains to the nature of interest in the land, as "purchase by barwardar". However, the applicant must establish that he belonged to the family of Barwardar and sale is also by the Barwardar. 20. The Tahasildar in the impugned order dated 12.02.2013 has referred to the contents of the Will dated 30.06.1922 registered on 04.07.1922 to hold that Muniswamy belonged to the family of Linga, one of the sons of original Barwardar Munitana. In addition, has also referred to Ex.D11-the genealogy and concluded that the said genealogy is admitted by the petitioners' predecessors. Based on these two documents, Tahsildar has come to the conclusion that the applicant Muniswamy is entitled to regrant of land bearing Sy.No.48 measuring 2 acre 16 guntas. 21. Learned District Judge, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Tahasildar relying on Ex.D11, and concluded that applicant in the application dated 20.01.1973 is grandson of Linga. Learned District Judge has - 16 - also referred to Ex.D6-the extract of Barwardar register to hold that name of Linga is shown in Ex.D6-Barwardar register. The learned District Judge has also referred to Ex.D9- the Will executed by Muniga @ Pillaga S/o Linga in favour of Muniswamy and others. Said Will is dated 04.07.1922. 22. It is relevant to notice that in the Will dated 04.07.1922, Sy.No.48 is not bequeathed. Said Will is referred to by the contesting respondents only to support the contention that the applicant Muniswamy is the descendant of Linga's branch as said Will is admittedly executed by Mariga s/o Linga. 23. The learned District Judge has also taken note of Ex.D4 which discloses that one Jyotappa has availed loan from a co-operative society and entry relating to the loan is shown in the property records from 1962 to 1989. Based on this, learned District Judge has concluded that applicant Muniswamy was in possession of the property. 24. Learned District Judge has also noted that the petitioners' predecessor Muniyellappa has not filed application for re-grant of entire extent of 2 acre 16 guntas - 17 - and claim is only for 1 acre 9 guntas. The re-grant of other inam lands in favour of petitioners’ predecessor is also taken into account before concluding that the petitioners are not entitled to regrant. 25. Petitioners’ predecessor Muniyellappa filed an application for re-grant of land bearing Sy.No.48 referred to above only to the extent of 1 acre 9 guntas out of total extent of 2 acre 16 guntas. Despite multiple remands since 1973, the applicant or his predecessors have not chosen to amend the application seeking larger extent of 2 acre 16 guntas over which respondents’ predecessor Muniswamy made a claim for re-grant. 26. 2 acres 16 guntas are granted to the contesting respondents and said order is called in question. This Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot raise a grievance in respect of an area in excess of 1 acre 9 guntas for which there is no claim by Muniyellappa. Thus, the petitioners' claim has to be considered only for 1 acre 9 guntas. 27. The petitioners have raised a contention that re- grant of lands in other survey numbers does not bar the petitioners’ predecessor from applying for re-grant if he - 18 - satisfies the eligibility criteria. There is no doubt that the re- grant of land in some other lands does not disentitle the petitioners’ predecessor from applying for re-grant if he is otherwise eligible. Keeping this principle in mind the petitioners' claim is considered. 28. This Court has perused the extract of inam land register of Hennagara Amanikere village, Taluk Anekal which is found in the original records submitted by the learned Government Advocate. 29. From the records found in the original file, one cannot trace any specific order recording the name of Muniyellappa in the property records as the service inam holder for Sy.No.48. However, there is no dispute that Sy.No.48 is a “Neeraganti Inam Land”. Both parties as already noted admit the fact that the property is a Neeraganti Inam Land in the name of Munitana. The record in this behalf for the year 1930-31 is also found in the file and the said entry in the record would reveal that there are seven other persons who have right along with Munitana. The relevant entry reads as under: “¤ÃgÀUÀAnAiÀÄ ªÀÄĤvÁ£À ªÀUÉÊgÉ 7 d£À ¤ÃgÀUÀAn £ËPÀj E£ÁA” - 19 - 30. It appears that those seven persons are sons of Munitana whose names are reflected in Col.No.17 of the register marked at Ex.D.6. 31. As already noticed, there is no dispute that originally property was possessed by Munitana. Propositus Munitana had 7 sons. The petitioners claim to be the descendants of Munielliga, one of seven sons of Munitana. The relationship of Munielliga the predecessor of the petitioners as descendant of propositus Munitana is not in dispute. Contesting respondents' claim as the descendants of Linga, one of seven sons of Munitana is in dispute. 32. Now the question is, whether Muniyellappa, the predecessor of the petitioners was possessing the land or whether Muniswamy, the predecessor of the contesting respondents was possessing the land as one of the descendants of branch of Linga. 33. Both Tahasildar and the learned District Judge have relied on Ex.D11-the family tree produced by contesting respondents. Ex.D11- the family tree was produced in the year *1971. It records the name of Muniswamy as grand son of Linga and Mariga as the son of *Page No.19 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 19.08.2025. - 20 - Linga. The entry relating to Muniswamy as the son of Mariga and grandson of Linga, other entries are not disputed. It is alleged by the petitioners that when Ex.D.11 was prepared and submitted, name of Muniswamy was not found and it is inserted later. 34. The contention of the respondents is that before the application for regrant was made by Muniyellappa, his name was not found in the Record of Right. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an application for production of additional documents to urge that the petitioners' predecessor's name was found in the Index of Land Records, on careful scrutiny of the said additional documents, it is noticed that the said entry is a stray entry without any order supporting the said entry. 35. The Register of Neeraganti Inam Lands does not reveal the name of petitioners' predecessor Muniyellappa as the service inam holder. The documents produced by the petitioners would reveal that initially the said property was noted as Neeraganti Inam land later, said entry was rounded off and petitioners' predecessor's name was entered in the record. Since, no supporting order is produced to justify the - 21 - said entry, this Court cannot attach any weightage to the said entry in the property records reflecting the petitioners' predecessor's nick name as 'Kaka' to accept the contention that petitioners' predecessor was exclusive service inam holder for Sy.No.48. 36. It is further relevant to notice that in the cross examination, the witness on behalf of the petitioners has admitted that one Munitana was the propositus and he had 7 children and each branch among the sons of Munitana had 1/7th share in the properties. It has also come in evidence that extent of land possessed by Munitana was around 21 acres in one village. It is also on record that properties measuring about 8 acres 5 guntas are regranted to the branch of petitioners' predecessor. It is further relevant to note that in the earlier application, subject land bearing Sy.No.48 was not mentioned. This is also one of the factors to disbelieve the entry in the name of the predecessor of the petitioners in the Index of Land Records. 37. Considering the extent of land possessed by Munitana and extent of lands granted to the branch of petitioners' predecessor, which is much more than 1/7th - 22 - share in the lands held by propositus Munitana, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to establish that the applicant - Muniyellappa possessed the land bearing Sy.No.48. 38. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the descendants of Linga, one of the sons of Munitana, have also been granted lands and the descendants of Linga did not file application seeking regrant of land bearing Sy.No.48 and urged that it would suggest that branch of Linga did not possess the land bearing Sy.No.48. 39. This Court is of the view that the omission to file application for regrant of Sy.No.48 appears to be for a reason. There is a sale deed in the name of Muniswamy - the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 13. It is quite possible that because of the sale deed, the respondents' predecessor might have carried an impression that there is no need to file an application. In the application filed in 1973, in addition to the reference to the sale deed, it is stated that the property is purchased by the Barwardar. Thus, it is apparent that the application is filed on the premise that the applicant is a Barwardar and also the purchaser. Since, the property was - 23 - sold probably the other descendants of Linga did not file application for regrant. 40. It is required to be stated at this juncture that the application seeking regrant has to be filed by the Village Office Holder or the descendants of the Village Office Holder. The application cannot be filed by the purchaser of the land before the land is regranted to the Village Office Holder. Hence, the application of predecessor of respondents No.1 to 13 in the capacity as the purchaser cannot be considered. However, it can be considered if the application is filed in the capacity of a Barwardar. 41. The application filed by the predecessor of respondents No.1 to 13 on 20.01.1973 reveals that he claims right as 'purchase by Barwardar'. This being the position, the omission on the part of descendants of Linga, who have not filed application seeking regrant of Sy.No.48, cannot come in the way of predecessor of respondents No.1 to 13 i.e., the applicant under the application dated 20.01.1973 claiming regrant subject to establishing the claim as the descendant of the branch of Linga. - 24 - 42. It is relevant to notice that the persons named as descendants in the branch of Linga as per the genealogy furnished by the petitioners have not disputed the claim by Muniswamy-the applicant under the application dated 20.01.1973. It appears that the descendants from the branch of Linga admit the applicant as one of the descendants of Linga's branch. However, dispute is raised by one of the sons’ branch of propositus Munitana, and said branch is different from the branch of Linga. 43. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the Will executed by Muniga @ Gaddada Pillaga. Said Muniga is admittedly son of Linga. Said Will at Ex.D.9 is not disputed and the said Will would disclose that Muniswamy is the son of Muniga @ Gaddada Pillaga. 44. Admittedly, the branch of Linga had 1/7th share in the Neerganti Inam Properties. Thus, claim made by Muniswamy as the successor of Linga is maintainable even without reference to the registered sale deed dated 03.11.1963 provided Muniswamy referred to in the Will is the applicant who filed application on 20.01.1973. - 25 - 45. The aforementioned Will reveals that the executant of the Will viz., Muniga is aged 80 and his son Muniswamy is aged 10. Though this factor creates a doubt as to whether Muniswamy referred to in the Will is the predecessor of contesting respondents as urged by the petitioners, in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not deem it appropriate to dwell further on the said contention. It is moreso because the descendants of Linga do not dispute that applicant of the application dated 20.01.1973 seeking regrant is the person named in the Will referred to above. 46. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the persons named in the Will, not appearing in the genealogy at Ex.D.11 furnished by respondents No.1 to 13, would contend that Ex.D.11 is concocted. 47. Though it appears that some of the persons named in the Will are not named in the genealogy at Ex.D.11, such discrepancy or omission may not take away the status of the applicant Muniswamy as one of the descendants of Linga's branch, because inheritance under the Will is not disputed by other descendants of Linga. - 26 - 48. In addition to this, the sale deed of 1963 would reveal that purchaser is son of Mariga @ Gaddada Pillaga. Name of the purchaser in the sale deed is mentioned as Munisamappa. In the application filed seeking regrant, the applicant's name is mentioned as Muniswamy. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the said sale deed executed in 1963 is not in favour of applicant Muniswamy. 49. Though slight variations in the name of the purchaser and applicant seeking regrant is noticed, such slight variations are understandable. It is not uncommon in rural areas to refer a person with slightly different name in different records. 50. More importantly, the descendants of Linga have not disputed that the purchaser is the son of Gaddada Pillaga. Descendants of Linga also do not dispute that the applicant is one of the descendants of Linga though the applicant does not claim that he has filed the application seeking regrant for and on behalf of all the descendants of Linga. Thus, this Court is of the view that the sale deed of the year 1963 which came into existence when there was no dispute between the parties assumes importance. One - 27 - cannot hold that the purchaser intended to create an evidence for himself as the descendant of Linga's branch when the dispute of this nature could not have been anticipated in 1963. 51. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the sale deed itself is suspicious on the premise that the sale consideration amount is shown to be Rs.4,000/- which is a huge amount in 1960s, for 2 acres and 16 guntas of land. It is also urged that if at all, the deed was executed by the remaining family members, same could have been done either by way of release deed or a partition deed instead of a sale deed which attracts higher stamp duty. 52. It is to be noticed that the sale deed of 1963 is executed by the members of other branches of descendants of the propositus Munitana and not by the brothers of the purchaser. Thus, the partition may not be the appropriate way to acquire the property. 53. As far as the logic behind purchasing the property for Rs.4,000/- in the year 1963 is concerned, same cannot be the subject matter of discussion in the present proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the - 28 - vendors and the purchasers have not disputed the sale transaction of 1963. 54. The additional documents produced by the petitioners along with an application for production of additional documents before this Court do not refer to any order to make an entry in the records pertaining to Sy.No.48 in the name of 'Kaka' and no order is produced to show as to the basis for such entry. 55. Though it is suggested that Muniswamy’s name was not recorded in the family tree in first instance and later Muniswamy’s name is inserted, this Court has to hold that Will of the year 1922 and sale deed of the year 1963 are good enough to hold that Muniswamy is the son of Muniga @ Gaddada Pillaga. And assuming that Muniswamy’s name is inserted in Ex.D11 subsequently, (before placing the same before the Tahsildar and before obtaining the signature of other persons named in the family tree) it can only mean that the insertion is to correct the omission in genealogy and nothing more. 56. Since the Will of the year 1922 is not disputed, the relationship mentioned in the Will has to be accepted and - 29 - merely because names of few persons mentioned in the Will are not reflected in the family tree, it does not mean Muniswamy who is described as son of Gaddada Pillaga and grand son of Balagai Linga is not the grandson of Linga. 57. Now the question is whether the petitioners who are claiming through Muniyellappa (Muniyellappa through Mada and Mada through Munielliga) are able to establish that original Munielliga did possess the land as service inamdar. Likewise whether Muniswamy is able to establish that Linga did possess the property in question. 58. As already noticed Ex.D6 which is Register of Inam lands of Hennagara village reveals seven names as equal sharers. And they are Lingabola, Muniyellaga, Rama, Muniga, Linga, Munitana and Innakichenna. Entry in Column No.17 of Ex.D6–Register reveals them as equal sharers. 59. Ex. P5 is also extract of index of land records where name of Muniyellappa is entered in column No.18 and the entry “Neeraganti Naukri Inam” is rounded off. This Ex.P5 is issued in the year 1983. This Court has perused Ex.P5 in the original register produced by the learned - 30 - Government Advocate. Ex.P5 found in the original file is issued to Madappa in the year 1983. This document issued in the year 1983 does not record the year in which the entries are made in the register. However, Ex.P7 found in the original file which is also a document similar to Ex.D5 reveals the entry for the year 1960-61. Date of issuance of the said document at Ex.P7 is not forthcoming. 60. The column No.19 in Ex.P5 found in the original file which was issued in the year 1982-83 refers to an entry No.531. This also does not reveal the year in which name of Muniyellappa is entered in column No.18. However, given the fact that the entry “Neeraganti Naukri Inam” is rounded off suggests that the said entry is made after first re-grant order in the year 1981. 61. Ex.P.4 which is the property extract of Survey No.48 (which is partially damaged) does reflect the name of Muniyellappa in column No.5, but does not reveal the year in which the said entry is made. 62. In the context of aforementioned facts, the Court should also consider that Muniyellappa who claims to be the descendant of Munielliga did not file application for re-grant - 31 - of Sy.No.48 initially. It has also come on record that Muniyellapa’s branch is also granted other lands which was originally held by the family. And very fact that Muniyellapa did not file application for re-grant of Sy.No.48 and filed the application of re-grant of other survey numbers would suggest that the property was not possessed by Muniyellappa. 63. The column No.18 in the extract of index of land record discloses the name of Muniyellappa @ Kaka below the entry “Neeraganti Inam”. This extract does not reveal the year in which Muniyellappa’s name is entered in column No.18. In addition, the change in the handwriting is clearly visible comparing the handwriting of the entry “Neeraganti Inam” with handwriting of the entry "Muniyellappa @ Kaka". 64. The Khata of Sy.No.48 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas extract reflects the following entry: “¤ÃgÀUÀAnAiÀÄ ªÀÄĤvÁ£À ªÀUÉÊgÉ 7 d£À ¤ÃgÀUÀAn £ËPÀj E£ÁA” 65. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed an application on 05.06.2025 for production of additional documents along with the said application, the respondents - 32 - have produced the index of land records pertaining to the properties bearing Sy.Nos.47, 48, 50, 53, 59, 78 and 79 for the year 1918 to 1920. Respondents have also filed application on 24.06.2025 seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents i.e., the record of right of the property bearing Sy.No.48 from 1918 to 1933 and also the record of right for Sy.No.53 from 1930 to *1933. From these records, it is noticed that name of Muniyellappa is not entered in the property records based on any regrant order and the inheritance of Sy.No.48 by Muniyellappa is not established as already discussed above. 66. It has come on record that the branch of Munielliga is also regranted certain lands which initially were held by Munitana. Since the petitioners do not claim to be the legal representatives of Linga son of Munitana, the petitioners cannot claim regrant of the disputed property. 67. This Court has also considered the reasons assigned by the Tahsildar and the learned District Judge. The findings recorded by the Tahsildar and the learned District Judge cannot be said to be perverse so as to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution *Page No.32 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 19.08.2025. - 33 - of India. The case made out by the contesting respondents appears more sound and probable than the case of the petitioners by applying the test of preponderance of probabilities. The reasons for holding that the applicant Muniswamy has inherited property bearing Sy.No.48 from the descendants of Linga are also discussed above. 68. Since the Court has considered the additional documents produced by both parties, all applications filed seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents are allowed. 69. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any valid reasons to interfere with the impugned orders. 70. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.02.2013 passed by Tahasildar, Anekal vide VOA (A) 707/1969-70, VOA.96/1980-81 (Annexure- K) and the order dated 17.07.2014 in Misc. Appeal No.20/2013 passed by III Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sitting at Anekal (Annexure-L) are *confirmed. *Page No.33 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 19.08.2025. - 34 - (iii) Applications for production of additional documents filed by both side are allowed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP