The court established that claims of occupancy rights under fraudulently presented evidence are invalid, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining authenticity in legal claims regardless of familial relationships.

ORDER :

RAJESH RAI K., J.

'Fraud' is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. In fraud, one gains at the loss and the cost of another. The instant case is one of such kind.

2. The petitioners and the contesting respondents are the family members. Their interse relationship is as under:

3. WP.No.27436/2017 is by Asha Mallikarjuna Hegde (daughter-in-law of Vanaja Ravindra Hegde) and others against Saritha Bhandary (daughter of Manorama Shetty), Sarojini Hegde (wife of Dr.Karunakara Hegde) and Manorama Shetty seeking quashing of order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal in LRY:7A 1197/2006-07 and order dated 23.01.2016 passed in Appeal No.714/2011 and order dated 27.05.2017 passed in Review Petition No.3/2016.

4. WP.No.27438/2017 is by Thingale Vikramarjuna Hegde against Saritha Bhandary (daughter of Manorama Shetty), Sarojini Hegde (wife of Dr.Karunakara Hegde) and Manorama Shetty seeking quashing of order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal in LRY:7A 1197/2006-07 and order dated 23.01.2016 passed in Appeal No.864/2011 and order dated 27.05.2017 passed in Review Petition No.4/2016.

5. WP.No.6397/2018 is by Thingale Vikramarjuna Hegde and Spoorthi Rai (daughter of Suchetha P.Rai) against Saritha Bhandary seeking quashing of order dated 31.01.2018 passed on I.A.No.34 filed seeking framing of additional issues in O.S.No.13/2005 and order dated 31.01.2018 passed on I.A.No.35 filed seeking stay of further proceedings in O.S.No.13/2005 till the disposal of WP.Nos.27436 and 27438/2017.

6. WP.No.6398/2018 is by Thingale Vikramarjuna Hegde and Spoorthi Rai against Manorama Shetty seeking quashing of order 31.01.2018 passed on I.A.No.29 filed seeking framing of additional issues in O.S.No.16/2005 and order dated 31.01.2018 passed on I.A.No.30 filed seeking stay of further proceedings in O.S.No.16/2005 till the disposal of WP.Nos.27436 and 27438/2017.

7. The case of Thingale Vikramarjuna Hegde is that lands he has filed Form No.7A on 03.12.1998 claiming occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.75/11 measuring 4.18 acres, 75/3 measuring 1.58 acres, 75/11 measuring 0.65 acres, 75/6 measuring 0.34 acres, 75/5 measuring 1.06 acres, 75/10 measuring 0.71 acres, 75/4 measuring 3.23 acres, 75/12 measuring 1.13 acres, 109/3A measuring 3.87 acres and 109/6 measuring 0.58 under the landlords namely Raghunath Hegde and Sridhar Hegde.

8. It is the case of Asha Mallikarjuna Hegde (daughter-in- law of Vanaja Ravindra Hegde) and others that Vanaja Ravindra Hegde has filed Form No.7A on 02.12.1998 claiming occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.75/6 measuring 0.34 acres, 75/10 measuring 0.71 acres, 75/6 measuring 1.06 acres, 75/3 measuring 4.46 acres and 75/93 measuring 0.89 acres under the landlord namely Manorama Shetty.

9. The Land Tribunal, after detailed enquiry, rejected their applications vide order dated 15.07.2011 in LRY:7A- 1197/2006-07. Aggrieved by which, they filed appeals in Appeal No.864 and 714/2011 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ("KAT"), which came to be dismissed on 23.01.2016. Against which, they filed Review Petition No.3 and 4/2016, which came to be rejected vide order dated 27.05.2017. Challenging the aforesaid order, they are before this Court in WP.Nos.27436 and 27438/2017.

10. Further, Saritha Bhandary filed O.S.No.13/2005 against Thingale Vikramarjuna Hegde, Manorama Shetty, Suchetha P.Rai, Dr.Karunaka Hegde and others seeking declaration tha