- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. GANGADHARA MANIYANI S/O.KRISHNA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT MULIYALA MUGERU HOUSE, KEPU VILLAGE, ADYANDKA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 260. 1(A). VANAJAKSHI D/O LATE KRISHNA MANIYANI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT GOLIYADKA HOUSE, KARDKA POST, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT - 671 542. 1(B). SUGANDI D/O KRISHNA MANIYANI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT MUNDEPALLA HOUSE, MULIYARU VILLAGE, POST MALLA KASARAGODU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 671 542. 1(C). CHANDRASHEKAR S/O KRISHNA MANIYANI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT MULIYALA MUGERU HOUSE, KEPU VILLAGE, ADYANDKA POST Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 260. (RESPONDENT NO.11 TO 13 ARE TRANSPORTED AS APPELLANT NO.1(A) TO 1(C) ARE PER ORDER DATED 20.06.2025) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A-C)) AND: 1. BELLACHI W/O.KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 10 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. DAMODARA MANIYANI S/O KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 3. GOPAL MANIYANI S/O KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 4. NARAYANA MANIYANI S/O KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 5. BHASKAR MANIYANI S/O KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 6. SATHYANANDA MANIYANI S/O KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 7. SADANANDA MANIYANI S/O KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 8. LEELAVATHI D/O KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 9. LAXMI D/O KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 10. RENUKA D/O KUNHAPPA MANIYANI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 10 ARE ALL RESIDING AT CHALLANTHADKA HOUSE, KUMBUDAJE VILLAGE, MARRAR POST, KASARGODU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 671 551. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.R. PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R2 TO R5, R7 TO R10 ARE SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2025, R11 TO R13 ARE TRANSPOSED AS A1(A-C); VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2025, R2 TO R10 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.63/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE DISMISSING I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2013 PASSED IN OS No.61/2006 (OLD OS.NO.247/2000) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL D.K. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 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.Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.V.R.Prasanna, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. Appellants are the children of original plaintiff – Choyichi, daughter of Chandu Maniyani. Her suit in O.S.No.247/2000 which was renumbered as O.S.No.61/2006 seeking relief of partition and accounting of income came to be dismissed on merits. 3. During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff and defendant died and their legal representatives were brought on record. 4. Legal representatives of original plaintiff being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit filed an appeal in RA No.63/2013. Appeal on contest, came to be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of the original plaintiff are before this Court in this appeal. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, original appellant namely – Gangadhara Maniyani died and present appellants are transposed as appellants who were initially arraigned as respondents as they did not join Gangadhara Maniyani at the time of filing the appeal and as of now, only Vanajakshi, Sugandi and Chandrashekar are the only appellants. 7. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 7.1. Lands in Sy.No.474 and its sub numbers 480 belonging to one Smt.Seethamma Bhandary in different survey numbers more fully described in the schedule to the plaint were being cultivated from the period of father of the original defendant for about 30 years on geni basis. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 7.2. When the Land Reforms Act came into force, original defendant said to have filed Form No.7 furnishing the details as to the number of lands which were being cultivated by him from his father’s period on geni basis. In Form No.7, owner of the land was shown as Smt.Seethamma Bhandary. 7.3. During the course of enquiry, Power of Attorney Holder of Smt.Seethamma Bhandary appeared before the land tribunal and gave consent for registering the name of the original defendant as occupant of the land. In the course of enquiry, original defendant was examined before the land tribunal and in his deposition, he had stated that a joint application is filed by himself and the original plaintiff and in the end; he has sought for land to be registered in the name of ‘Nammannu (Ours)’. The certified copy of the deposition of original defendant is marked at Ex.P.19. 7.4. However, the land tribunal by order dated 07.02.1979, allowed Form No.7 vide Ex.P.14 and directed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 that the occupancy rights in respect of the lands to be registered only in the name of original defendant after holding an enquiry. 7.5. There was also mention that a house property situated in one of the items of the suit property shall be registered in the name of Chandu Maniyani, who is one of the brothers of the original defendant. Thereafter, Form No.10 came to be issued by land tribunal wherein name of the original defendant alone got reflected and he was paying the taxes and enjoyed the property. 7.6. Noticing the said fact, original plaintiff – Choyichi, said to have filed an application before the land tribunal to modify the order vide Ex.P.14. Said application came to be dismissed. Against which Choyichi filed writ petition in WP No.10358/1982. This Court by order dated 15.07.1993 in the said writ petition, relegated the parties to work out their remedy before the Civil Court having regard to the disputed factual aspects. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 7.7. Thereafter, present suit in O.S.No.247/2000 came to be filed which was renumbered as O.S.No.61/2006. On due contest, suit came to be dismissed by judgment dated 01.07.2013. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of the original plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.63/2013. 9. Before the First Appellate Court, veracity of Ex.P.2 which is the certified copy of Form No.7 was called in question inasmuch as one of the grounds raised by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff is that the learned Trial Judge ignored other particulars in Ex.P.2 and therefore, dismissing the suit is bad. 10. In order to ascertain as to the said aspect of the matter which was seriously disputed by the legal representatives of the original defendant, First Appellate Court summoned the original records from the land tribunal and compared the original Form No.7 with Ex.P.2. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 On such comparison of the original Form No.7 with Ex.P.2, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while reappreciating the factual aspects of the matter, recorded a categorical finding that Ex.P.2 does not contain the true particulars of original Form No.7 and there is a mischief played by the revenue authorities at the behest of the appellants in incorporating certain things in the column ‘other particulars’ in kannada language which was absent in original Form No.7 filed by the original defendant. 11. It is pertinent to note the reasoning recorded by the learned Judge in First Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.57 and 58, which are culled out hereunder for ready reference: 57. However, on perusal of the original declaration filed by defendant before the Land Tribunal in Form No.7 which is available in the case file at page No.72 it appears that the said application was filled up in the ink pen and all the particulars of first page and 2nd page of Form No.7 are all filled in English language. Whereas the contents available under the head any other particulars in the bottom of 2nd page was written in the Kannada language with a ball - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 pen. Not only that the handwriting of English and Kannada are not appears to be written by same person and both the writings are not of the same age. Therefore it would be suffice to hold that, who written the declaration form in English language was not written the recitals available in Kannada language at the bottom of the second page. Further, it is specifically forthcoming that the name of the landlord is shown as Sarvethody Seethamma and he has filed declaration in respect of 8 properties under different Sy.Nos of Kepu village Bantwal Taluk. Further he has declared that about 27 years he was cultivating the land as tenant and in the bottom it is declared that I have been cultivating the land as a tenant for 27 years and I am interested in getting registered as an occupant of the land on the terms and conditions laid down in the KLR Act 1961. 58. In the 2nd page he has furnished the name of other family members other than those described above as owner or tenant or any other capacity. Wherein he has specifically stated that, he himself has cultivating the land and he shown the name of his wife Bellachi and she is having no land and further he declared names of two minor sons and two unmarried daughters. In between them an attempt was made to join the name of the plaintiff in a different pen and thereafter it was strike off. As rightly observed by the trial court he has not disclosed the names of his major sons and married daughters in the application even though he was having all together 9 children. Further in column which can be find at the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 exclusive right side under the head capacity in which tenancy was held, it is forthcoming that “this is family property, in the family, I am liable to 1/84th share, the partition suit is pending in the court , no settlement is done.” It seems that the column at any other particulars was kept blank and defendant has put his signature at the bottom and thereafter with an ulterior motive the aforesaid recitals are inscribed by somebody else. The said subsequent insertion is further fortified from the fact that under the names of minor children of defendant it was tried to write Choyichisister, but later it was strike off. But no signature is forthcoming regarding the said addition and deletion. 12. While so recording a categorical finding, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants by considered judgment dated 23.11.2021. 13. Being further aggrieved by the same, remaining legal representatives of the original plaintiff are now before this Court, in this appeal on following grounds and substantial questions of law raised in the appeal: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 GROUNDS  The Judgement and decree of the Courts below are opposed to law, facts and evidence of the case. The inferences drawn by the Courts below and the finding given by the courts below are erroneous.  Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and the inferences drawn by the courts below are erroneous. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the admission of witness and recitals in the documentary evidence in proper perspective.  There is no dispute regarding relationship of the plaintiff and defendant and that the suit schedule properties were granted by the Land Tribunal and one Sarvothody Seethamma was the landlady who was represented by K R Bhandary before the Land Tribunal. The sole question involved is as to whether the grant of occupancy right enures to the benefit of plaintiff or not. The Courts below while considering the issue No 1 totally ignored various documentary evidence which resulted in passing the impugned Judgement and Decree. EX P 16 to P 18 are the Voters list for the Year 1988, 1980, and 1985 respectively which proves that the plaintiff and defendant were residing together which conclusively proves the plaint averment that the plaintiff is residing in the suit property and the defendant was care taker since the plaintiff was a widow and children were young when the Form No 7 was filed. It is also relevant to note here that DW 1 in his evidence has admitted that persons referred in EX P 16 to P 18 are family members. In addition to this Form No 7 which was produced on the side of plaintiff as EX P 2 shows that claim was made on behalf of the plaintiff and her children. Doubting the EX P 2 without their being any - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 evidence regarding allegation of forgery is erroneous.  It is submitted that EX P 19 and P 20 which were part of the records of the Land Tribunal at an undisputed point of time clearly proves that the tenancy was that of the plaintiff. DW 1 in his evidence has stated that his father has not stated false evidence before the Land Tribunal and that there is no ill will to the landlord. EX P 19 is the evidence of defendant in which it was stated that application was given by defendant and plaintiff and her children. Further EX P 20 statement on behalf of landlord it was stated that from the year 1972, plaintiff and her children have taken the tenancy and are in possession of the land. This statement of landlord was also reflected in the order of the Land Tribunal. The judicial proceedings done before the Land Tribunal are having presumption as provided under Section 80 of the Evidence Act. The reliance placed by the Land Tribunal on the ordersheet of the land tribunal to hold that there is no entry in the ordersheet regarding recording the evidence as per EX P 19 and 20 cannot be ground to disbelieve EX P 19 and 20 when presumption is available to such judicial documents. The defendant who disputed about the EX P 19 and P 20 has not tendered evidence rebutting such presumptions. Hence, by accepting the averments in EX P 2, P 19 and EX 20, courts below ought to have decreed the suit by holding that tenancy was that of the plaintiff and defendant as caretaker had filed Form No 7 and the order of the Land Tribunal enures to the benefit of plaintiff also.  PW 2 is an independent witness who has stated about the tenancy of plaintiff. Statement made in EX P 20 and evidence of PW 2 are in consonance and there is nothing to disbelieve evidence of PW 2 especially when DW 1 has admitted that PW 2 is - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 not having any ill will against defendant. Doubting the evidence of PW 2 without there being any reasons resulted in passing the impugned Judgement and Decree.  Courts below have mainly held that there are manipulation in EX P 2, P 19 and EX P 20 and thus have denied the relief to the plaintiff. It is to be noted here itself that in the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner or before this Hon'ble Court while the writ petition with respect to non inclusion of the name of the plaintiff in the order of the Land Tribunal was considered, no allegation of manipulation, forgery or interpolation was taken. On the other hand, after long lapse of time, such defence was taken by the defendant and even IA No 3 filed for summoning order of the Land Tribunal in the suit was rejected holding that tampering, manipulations, interpolations has not been prima facie proved and such order had become final. Further, though EX P 1 contained the recital regarding right of plaintiff, in the reply at EX D 25, there was no allegation of tampering, manipulation etc., Hence, courts below have committed an error of law in holding that EX P 2, EX P 19 and P 20 are manipulated documents.  The First Appellate Court has also erred in law in rejecting the application for additional evidence. When a comprehensive suit was filed in OS No 44/2010 for partition and separate possession of the suit properties by other children of Chandu Maniyani and such aspect was sought to be placed before the First Appellate Court, such application ought to have been considered by the First Appellate Court especially when both the courts below have held that tenancy was from the time of ancestors namely from the time of Chandu Maniyani. Hence, rejection of application for additional evidence vitiates the impugned Judgement and decree. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022  Even otherwise, when the courts below have reasoned that tenancy is not that of the plaintiff or the defendant but from the time of ancestors namely father Chandu Maniyani, by moulding the reliefs, courts below ought have decreed the suit. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW “(i) Whether the Courts below have erred in law in holding that the order of the Land Tribunal does not enures to the benefit of family and whether such finding is opposed to documentary evidence such as EX P.2 i.e., Form No 7, EX P.19 i.e., Statement on behalf of the Landlord before the Land Tribunal and EX P.20 i.e., statement of defendant before the Land Tribunal ? (ii) Whether the Courts below have erred in law in disbelieving EX.P.2, EX.P.19 and EX.P.20 by holding that there are manipulations and whether such finding is opposed for not considering the effect of Section 80 of the Evidence Act? (iii) Whether the Courts below have erred in law in dismissing the suit ignoring the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and admission of DW.1? (iv) Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in law in rejection application filed for additional evidence especially when the additional evidence sought to be produced shows that comprehensive suit for partition and separate possession is pending in respect of the subject matter of the suit?” - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 14. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that assuming that Ex.P.2 is interpolated, for the sake of argument, deposition of original defendant marked vide Ex.P.19 cannot be lost sight of by this Court in appreciating the case of the original plaintiff and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 15. He would further contend that there is a clear mention in Ex.P.19 that the application was jointly given by the plaintiff and defendant and while seeking the relief also, original defendant has sought for entering the name of ‘Nammannu (Ours)’. Therefore, doubting the case of the plaintiff by the learned Trial Judge and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on aforesaid substantial questions of law. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6, who is the legal representative of original defendant supports the impugned judgments. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 17. He would further contend that original plaintiff never had any right in respect of the suit property and being the sister who was widow, original defendant compassionately permitted her to participate in the agricultural operations to eke out her livelihood. Therefore, at no stretch of imagination, the occupancy rights in respect of the suit property could have been granted in favour of original plaintiff. As such, dismissal of the suit by the learned Trial Judge and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 18. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 19. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that the suit properties earlier belonged to Smt.Seethamma Bhandary. Admittedly, lands were being cultivated by the original defendant and at the most, original plaintiff might have assisted the original defendant in agricultural operations as she has been rendered widow. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 20. Power of Attorney of Smt.Seethamma Bhandary who appeared before the land tribunal pursuant to the enquiry held by the land tribunal after the Land Reforms Act came into force, has specifically stated that it is the original defendant who was cultivating the land. There is a serious discrepancy as to the contents in ‘other column’ in Form No.7 relied on by the plaintiff. 21. In that regard, no enquiry was held before the Trial Court and suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 22. Before the First Appellate Court, when said aspect of the matter is brought to the notice of learned Judge, on account of denial of the genuineness of Ex.P.2, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court summoned the original records from the land tribunal and compared Ex.P.2 with original Form No.7. 23. On such comparison, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, recorded a categorical finding that the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 contents found in Ex.P.2 in the ‘other column’, was absent in original Form No.7. 24. Likewise, in paragraph Nos.57 and 58 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, referred to supra, learned Judge has pointed out as to why he does not believe the genuineness of Ex.P.2 and how it has been interpolated only to suit to the convenience of the original plaintiff. 25. At any rate, since there is a categorical finding on the factual aspects by both the Courts, this Court is only required to find out whether any legal issue arises to be considered in the present appeal in view of the above findings recorded by both the Courts. 26. In the light of the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum referred to supra, this Court has again perused the material on record meticulously. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 27. Original records show that Ex.P.2 does not tally with Ex.D.29. Likewise, Ex.P.14, which is the document that has been relied on by the plaintiff, would not make out a case for plaintiff. Deposition given by the original defendant marked vide Ex.P.19 is taken note by the land tribunal but did not grant any right in favour of original plaintiff namely Choyichi who is the widowed sister of original defendant – Kunhappa Maniyani. 28. Noticing the same, there was a positive attempt made by the Choyichi in approaching this Court in WP No.10359/1982. This Court by order dated 15.07.1993, disposed of the said writ petition by directing the parties to work out their remedy in a duly constituted suit. 29. It is pertinent to note that after disposal of the writ petition in the year 1993 as referred to supra; there was a total silence on the part of the Choyichi for a period of seven years inasmuch as suit came to be filed only in the year 2000 which was numbered as O.S.No.247/2000. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 Suit had undergone a marathon trial and got disposed of by considered judgment dated 01.07.2013. 30. Taking note of the above sequence of events, if the original plaintiff – Choyichi had any independent right, she should have worked out by filing separate Form No.7. 31. It is also pertinent to note that in Form No.7, which was filed before the land tribunal vide Ex.D.28 there is no signature of Choyichi. What prevented Choyichi to appear before the land tribunal when the enquiry was conducted is also not explained on behalf of the plaintiff. 32. Even after the order was passed by the land tribunal on 07.02.1979 vide Ex.P.14, Choyichi did not choose to challenge the order passed by the land tribunal before the Appellate Tribunal. These aspects of the matter exposes the hollowness in the claim made by Choyichi. 33. Under such circumstances, the findings recorded by the Trial Court which was reappreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30843 RSA No. 360 of 2022 securing the original records from the land tribunal referred to supra in paragraph Nos.57 and 58 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal would not merit for further consideration. 34. Accordingly, following: ORDER Substantial questions of law are meritless and consequently, appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT: BHK