- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2008 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. MARY W/O LATE SUDARSHAN RAJAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2. SRI. JACKSON S/O LATE SUDARSHAN RAJAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 3. MRS CYBEL D/O LATE SUDARSHAN RAJAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 4. NIVEDITHA D/O LATE SUDARSHAN RAJAN AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE APPELLANT NO.1 5. SMT LALITHA S. RAJAN D/O LATE SUDARARAJAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.5, STALIN GUNDI MISSION COMPOUND, DHARWAD. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE FOR A2; V/O DATED 29.05.2024, A2 TO A4 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED A1; Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR A2; SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY.,ADVOCATE FOR A3 TO A5) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING NOW AT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN KRISHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560 002. 3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE NORTH TALUK D C COURT COMPOUND BANGALORE-560 009 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. SRI P G SUDARSHAN SINCE DEAD BY LRS 4(a) SRI. S. MADANGOPAL S/O LATE P.G. SUDARSHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.17, 16TH CROSS 12TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 055. 4(b) S. RANGARANJAN S/O LATE P.G. SUDARSHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.17, 16TH CROSS 12TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 055. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 5. SRI VENKATAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS 5(a) CHINNAMMA W/O LATE VANKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 5(b) KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE LAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 5(c) SHASHIKALA C/O LATE LAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 5(d) LASHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE LAKKAAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5(e) SUDHAKAR L., S/O LATE LAKKAPPA 5(f) ANITA L., D/O LATE LAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 5(g) NANDESH S/O LATE CHIKKALAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 5(h) LAVANYA W/O M. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.196, 1ST CROSS KAVERINAGAR, LAGGERE BANGALORE - 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A & B) SMT. ANUSHREE JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR R5 (A TO H) THIS RFA FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.4778/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, CCH.NO.10, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT Plaintiffs are before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2007 passed in O.S.No.4778/1994 on the file of IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') by which the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and consequential relief has been dismissed. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Case of the plaintiffs is that; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 3.1 That one Sri. Gopala Iyengar was the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.8/4 of Laggere Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 3 acres and 4 guntas (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit schedule property'). That said Sri. Gopala Iyengar had two wives, namely Smt. Sangamma and Smt. Andalamma. 3.2 That through his first wife Smt. Sangamma, he had four sons and two daughters namely Sri. P.G. Krishnamurthy, Sri. P.G. Ramaswamy, Sri. P.G. Dorai Swami, Sri. Muthukumar, Smt. Alumellamma and Smt. Ranganayakamma. 3.3 That from his second wife, he had three sons and two daughters namely Sri. P.G. Sudarshan, Sri. P.G. Purushotham, Sri. P.G. Shanmughanadan and two daughters namely Smt. Padmamma and Smt. Anjuvalli. 3.4 That in terms of deed of partition dated 10.04.1952, suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Smt. Alumellamma the first wife for life and for her son Sri. Sundarajan and thereafter to her grandchildren. Smt. Alumellamma continued to be in possession of the property exercising all right of her ownership over the suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 property, as she and her son and grandchildren were entitled for right, title and interest over the same. 3.5 That upon demise of said Sri. Sundarajan and Smt. Alumellamma, her grandchildren became absolute owner of the property. Smt. Alumellamma had appointed defendant No.5- Sri. Venkatappa, to look after the suit scheduled property as she was not having any support from her family members. 3.6 Things stood thus, defendant No.4, the first son of Sri. Gopala Iyengar, from his second wife Smt. Andalamma had filed an application for grant of occupancy right in respect to the suit schedule property which was registered in a case bearing No.LRF.33/1974-75. Without any notice and without even any enquiry, Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in respect of suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.4. 3.7 That the defendant No.4 had played fraud on the Land Tribunal, he had forged the signature of said Smt. Alumellamma and had mis-represented the Land Tribunal, as if the letter was written and issued by Smt. Alumellamma on 17.06.1976 from Villipuram Village, Tamil Nadu. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 3.8 That the said letter even if it was issued could not have reached the Tribunal on the same day. Smt. Alumellamma had not written any such letter. Defendant No.4 had never worked in any capacity for or under Smt. Alumellamma. She could not have written any letter. That the claim of occupancy rights granted in favour of the defendant No.4 based on said forged letter was illegal. As such, suit is seeking for following reliefs: '' i) Declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule land and that the order dated 17.06.76 passed by the Land Tribunal in case No.LRF33/74-75 is without jurisdiction and the same is nullity non-existing and viod and not binding on the plaintiffs. ii) Declaring that the defendants 4 and 5 have no manner of right, title and interest with respect to the suit schedule land and direct the 5th defendant to deliver actual physical possession to the plaintiffs and iii) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fir under the circumstances of the case including costs.'' 4. Written statement is filed by the defendants, denying the plaint averments. However, it was admitted that there was a partition in the year 1952 in which the suit property was allotted for lifetime in favour of Smt. Alumellamma. She had engaged Sri. Sudarshan as her tenant and the Land Tribunal by order dated 17.06.1976, considering his continuous uninterrupted peaceful possession, conferred occupancy rights. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 5. Defendant No.5, unsuccessfully contested before this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.37078/1982 and W.A.No.1116/1986, challenging the Order of the Tribunal dated 02.07.1984, which resulted in dismissal. Thus, defendant No.4 has been in continuous possession of the suit property. 6. That upon the grant of occupancy rights, Smt. Alumellamma had lost her rights. Allegation of forging of a letter is also denied. That mother of the plaintiff Smt. Zenith Sundarajan had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12620- 12621/1991, which was also dismissed on 04.08.1993. The order of the Land Tribunal attained finality. Additional written statement was filed, questioning the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, sought for dismissal of suit. 7. Defendant No.5, also filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. 8. Based the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues for its consideration: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 Issues 1 Whether the plaintiffs prove their title to the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the order of the Land Tribunal bearing No.LRF.33/1974-75 dated: 17.6.1976 is without jurisdiction, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory decree as sought for? 4. What decree/order? Additional Issues framed on 03.01.2005: 1. Whether 5th defendant has perfected the right over the suit property by adverse possession? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession? Additional Issues framed on 28.6.2006: Whether this court has jurisdiction to declare that the order of the land tribunal bearing No.LRF33/197374 dated:17.06.1976, is without jurisdiction, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs? 9. Sri. K. N. Jayaram has been examined as PW1 and exhibited 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. One Sri.P.G. Sudarshan-defendant No.4 has been examined as DW1 and exhibited 33 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D33. 10. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court answered issues and additional issues in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, plaintiffs are before this Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants submits that the primary ground on which the suit was filed was the fraud which was exerted by defendant No.4 on the Land Tribunal while obtaining the grant of occupancy rights. He refers to paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the plaint to submit that though there appears to be a Bar to maintain the suit questioning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in grant of occupancy rights in the light of provisions contained under Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, since the issue of fraud is raised, the same has to be adjudicated only before the Competent Civil Court. Therefore, he submits that the suit was well maintainable. He refers to the deposition of DW1 recorded on 12.12.2006 and 14.12.2006 to submit that even according DW1, he was cultivating the land on behalf of all family members, even during lifetime of his father he was not cultivating the land as a tenant. That he admitted partition having taken place during the lifetime of their father. That from the year 1970, he had stopped cultivating on behalf of the family, as each of the family were cultivating their respective shares and that no rents were paid. Referring to this part of the deposition, learned counsel insists that this unambiguous - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 admission on the part of defendant No.4 has to be read in the light of allegation made in paragraph Nos.11 to 14 of the plaint. That when even according to defendant No.4, he was neither a tenant nor was he paying any rental to the Smt. Alumellamma, thus, Smt. Alumellamma writing a letter expressing her no objection to confer the occupancy rights in his favour would not arise. These circumstances sufficient enough to construe and infer fraud being played on the Land Tribunal, is his submission. He also refers to Ex.D1, the order sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal to point out that no notice of any nature whatsoever had been served on the plaintiffs. Thus, factually and legally the order of confirmation passed by the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in respect of suit property in favour of defendant No.4 was unsustainable, which the trial Court has not appreciated. Hence seeks for allowing of the appeal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.4 submits that though allegation of fraud has been made specifically with reference to a letter, no such letter has been brought on record. He submits no attempt is made either to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 examine any witness or document to justify the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation including forgery of a letter. He refers to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ishwaragouda Vs Mallikarjun Gowda reported in (2009) 1 SCC 626 to justify that in the case involving validity or otherwise of the grant made by the Land Tribunal, Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is a clear bar and it ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. As regard to entertainability of the suit on the question of `fraud', he relies upon the Judgment in the case of R.Ravindra Reddy and others Vs H.Ramaiah Reddy and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 214. Referring to paragraph No.29 of the said judgment he submits that since no material evidence is produced by the plaintiff to substantiate the allegation of fraud, the trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the suit. He refers to document at Ex.D2 order dated 04.08.1993 passed in W.P.No.12620-12621/1991 which was filed by the very plaintiffs 1 and 2 questioning the order dated 17.06.1976 passed in LRF.33/1974-75 by the Land Tribunal which resulted in dismissal and submits that the appellant herein had raised the similar issue in the said writ petition and this Court had - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 declined to accept the same resulting in its dismissal and the same has attained finality. 13. That similarly, Sri. Venkatappa defendant No.5 also filed writ petition in W.P.No.37078/1982 and W.A.No.1116/1986 at Ex.D3 and D4 which also resulted in dismissal. Thus, he submits that all the attempts made prior to filing of the suit and subsequent to the filing of the suit by plaintiffs to establish the allegation of fraud has not been appreciated either by this Court or by trial Court. Therefore he submits that appellants has made out no grounds warranting interference. Thus, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 14. Heard and perused the records. 15. Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 reads as under: ''132. Bar of jurisdiction.—(1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by 2[xxx], the Deputy Commissioner, 3[an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under section 83,] 4[the Tribunal] 5[the Tahsildar], the 5[Karnataka Appellate Tribunal]5 or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control. (2) No order of 6[x x x], the Deputy Commissioner, 7[an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under section 83,] 1[the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 Tribunal] 2[the Tahsildar], the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, or the State Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court.'' "133. Suits, proceedings, etc., involving questions required to be decided by the Tribunal.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force,— (i) no Civil or Criminal Court or officer or Authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land, decide the question whether such land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st March 1974 (ii) such Court or officer or Authority shall stay such suit or proceedings in so far as such question is concerned and refer the same to the Tribunal for decision; (iii) all interim orders issued or made by such Court, officer or Authority, whether in the nature of temporary injunction or appointment of a Receiver or otherwise, concerning the land shall stand dissolved or vacated, as the case may be; (iv) the Tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under clause (i) and communicate its decision to such Court, officer or Authority. The decision of the Tribunal shall be final. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall preclude the Civil or Criminal Court or the officer or authority from proceeding with the suit, case or proceedings in respect of any matter other than that referred to in that sub-section." 16. The Apex Court in the case of Ishwaragouda (supra) has adverting to the jurisdictional aspect of the matter has held that any question concerning the grant of occupancy right or the question whether the land is or not an agricultural land, whether the person claiming possession is a tenant or not is - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 vested and to be adjudicated only by the Land Tribunal and no suit or proceedings shall be entertained in any Civil Court or Criminal Court. There cannot be any dispute with the aforesaid legal aspect of the matter. However, perusal of the plaint averments more particularly paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 would indicate that the grounds urged in the plaint are with regard to alleged fraud and misrepresentation and forging of the document namely purported letter dated 17.06.1976 allegedly issued by Smt. Alumelamma which was apparently received by the Tribunal on the very same day. Though serious allegations of fraud and forgery is laid in the plaint, no evidence in this regard has been led. Plaintiffs has not entered the witness box. One power of attorney holder has been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is settled principle of law, that the issues such as fraud and misrepresentation are the matter concerning the person affected personally and the same cannot be deposed by a power of attorney holder. That power of attorney holder is incompetent witness when it comes to deposing the mental and psychological aspect of affected person. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 17. It is relevant at this juncture to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANKAUR Vs HARTAR SINGH SANGHA reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512 has summarized the position as to who should give the evidence. The said paragraph is extracted hereunder; "18. We may now summarise for convenience, the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge: (a) An attorney-holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit. (b) If the attorney-holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions. If the attorney-holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney- holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be proved. (c) The attorney-holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge. (d) Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney-holder, necessarily the attorney-holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorised managers/attorney-holders or - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney-holders. (e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney-holder, the principal has to examine that attorney- holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney-holder. (f) Where different attorney-holders had dealt with the matter at different stages of the transaction, if evidence has to be led as to what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney-holders will have to be examined. (g) Where the law requires or contemplated the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his “state of mind” or “conduct”, normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney-holder. A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his “bona fide” need and a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to show his “readiness and willingness” fall under this category. There is however a recognised exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to bona fides or “readiness and willingness”. Examples of such attorney-holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad.” 18. That apart the alleged letter has not been summoned before the Trial Court. Even if the allegations made in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the plaint has taken at their face value, same cannot be accepted and countenanced in the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10985 RFA No. 830 of 2008 absence of production of cogent material evidence to substantiate the said allegations. In other words, except assertion made in the plaint and the oral assertion made by power of attorney holder nothing is placed on record. Evidence in this regard cannot be considered to be the one legally tenable and acceptable. Same has been taken note by the trial Court at paragraph 16 of its Judgment. Even if it is held that the suit concerning the grant was maintainable on this ground, for want of evidence on the question of fraud and misrepresentation, suit fails. Appeal consequently is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL/SBN