The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 61 and Sec. 21 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which governed the transfer and creation of rights in the subject property.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present regular second appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff No.2 aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered in the judgment and decree dtd. 06/09/2000 in O.S.No.1449/1991 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mangalore, D.K. (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and the judgment and decree dtd. 14/03/2013 in RA.No.193/2000 by the III Additional Senior Judge, Mangalore, D.K. (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court').

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the trial court.

3. Originally the suit in OS.No.1449/1991 was filed by one Narayana Moolya, the plaintiff against his son and daughter namely, Sanjiva and Revathi, the defendant Nos.1 and 2, seeking partition of plaint 'A' schedule property and for allotment of his share. During pendency of the said suit, Narayana Moolya died and thereafter, the present appellant-N.Poovappa was impleaded as supplemental plaintiff No.2 on the basis of a registered Will executed by Narayana Moolya in his favour.

4. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit 'A' schedule property consisting 3 items of immovable properties in Sy.No.40 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, Sy.No.40 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas and Sy.No.111 measuring 1 acre together with residential house, a bunk shop, 6 coconut trees and 3 jack fruit trees were acquired by the plaintiff and his wife deceased-Smt. Bhavani jointly in terms of a registered Mulgeni Deed dtd. 18/07/1961. That with the advent of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') they had filed a declaration and occupancy rights were granted in their favour as per the order dtd. 27/07/1979 passed in LRT.No.364/1979-80 and accordingly occupancy patta certificate was issued on 23/11/1979. That Smt. Bhavani, the wife of plaintiff and mother of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 passed away subsequent to the grant of occupancy right. Since the occupancy right was jointly granted in favour of plaintiff and his wife, the plaintiff claimed his half share in the suit schedule property and a share in the remaining half portion of the property belonging to his deceased wife-Smt. Bhavani. That during the pendency of the said suit, the original plaintiff- Narayana Moolya also passed away and thereafter the present appellant Poovappa was added as supplemental plaintiff No.2 based on a Registered Will dtd. 28/08/1992 executed by original plaintiff Narayana Moolya bequeathing his rights in the suit schedule property. Thus, the said Poovappa, the plaintiff No.2 claimed 4 shares out of 6 shares in the suit schedule property.

5. The defendant No.1 filed written statement which was adopted by the defendant No.2, wherein the grant of occupancy rights in favour of their father Narayana Moolya, the plaintiff No.1 and their mother-Smt. Bhavani was admitted. It was contended that the suit schedule property was acquired by their mother on Mulgeni rights although plaintiff's name was included. It was contended that their mother Smt. Bhavani was paying Mulgeni rent. That suit schedule property was non-agricultural property. However, on the ill-advise the plaintiff No.1 and his wife Smt. Bhavani, had filed declaration before the Land Tribunal which granted occupancy right in their joint names. The said Poovappa, the plaintiff No.2 herein had instigated the plaintiff No.1 to file the suit for partition. The mother of the defendants had spent Rs.50,000.00 for construction of a residential house which is presently occupied by the defendant No.1 and his wife and children. The defendant No.2, who is a married visits and stays in the said house. On impleadment of the plaintiff No.2 based on the Will executed by plaintiff No.1, the defendants filed additional written statement denying the due execution of the registered Will dtd. 28/08/1992 as the same is fraudulent and got up document. That plaintiff No.2 is a postman and a scheming litigant and had obtained signature o