Proper evaluation of documentary evidence is vital in determining occupancy rights; reliance solely on revenue records without considering the broader context can lead to errors in legal judgments.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

Appellants-claimants are before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 questioning the order passed in WP No.30897/2002 dated 20.11.2007 by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition where under the order of Land Tribunal (in short, Tribunal) dated 29.06.2002 was in question.

2. The parties shall be referred to as per the rank they hold before this Court in writ appeal.

3. The husband of first appellant and father of appellants No.1, 2 and 3, one Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa claims that he was tenant of Sy.No.277/A/1 measuring 2 acres 91 cents situated at Amaravathi village, Hospete Taluk under respondent No.4 the owner of said property and he was tenant since 30 years. Both the husband of first appellant and respondent No.4 have filed rival applications in Form No.1 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of said property before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 claimed to be the owner of the land in dispute and respondent No.4 is the rival claimant whose application filed in Form No.1 was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 29.06.2002. However, learned Single Judge set aside the same and directed respondent No.2 to register him as occupant of the land in dispute and said order is under challenge in this appeal.

4. The appellants further stated that Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa died on 17.03.2001 and after his death appellants were impleaded in this appeal.

5. This is the second round of litigation.

6. The brief case of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:

7. The land in question in this case is situated at Sy.No.277/A/1 measuring 2 acres 91 cents at Amaravathi village, Hospete Taluk. The appellants and respondent No.4 being the rival claimants have submitted application under Form No.1 of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. Initially, after enquiry, the Tribunal has passed the order in favour of first applicant-Vasudevachar, (respondent No.4), which was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.8860/1989, which was allowed by order dated 02.11.1989 and matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for further enquiry. Accordingly, further enquiry was conducted and the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of Jambanahalli Hanumanthappa i.e., in favour of the husband of first appellant by its order dated 29.06.2002. Said order was challenged by respondent No.4- Vasudevachar in Writ Petition No.30897/2002. In said writ petition, the learned Single Judge has declared that Vasudevachar is the tenant as on the fixed date based on RTCs and allowed the writ petition. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.V.M.Sheelvanth submitted his argument that respondent No.4 has mislead the Court and has produced the manipulated RTC and not produced the RTC of relevant year and based on it the learned Single Judge has passed the order, which is erroneous. He also submitted that he has produced all the relevant RTCs and other documents. He further contended that respondent No.4 is none other than the son of original owner-Subbamma’s brother and the contention of respondent No.4 that his father was given in adoption is not proved. Thus, respondent No.4 being the family member cannot file claim petition claiming that he is the tenant. Furthermore, respondent No.4 has taken different stands in different forums at different times. At once, he states that he is the owner of the property; at another stretch, he states that he is the tenant and at another stretch, he contended that there was partition and this property has fallen to his share. However, these fact