[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nagappa Since Dead By His Lrs vs State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
WA No. 894 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 894 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. CHINNAMMA
WO LATE NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
2. PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by 3. MADAPPA
REKHA R S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
Location: AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
High Court
of
Karnataka 4. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
5. RAJESHWARI
D/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
WA No. 894 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
7. SHIVAPPA
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
8. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
KATHWADIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 315.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
NANJANGUD,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
WA No. 894 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. M.V.SHARADAMMA
W/O OF K.RAMASWAMY,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO.83,
3RD BLOCK EAST
THANDAVESHWAR TEMPLE ROAD,
LIC COLONY,
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 011.
SIDDAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
4. SMT. V.B.MALLIGAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
5. SRI. PRAKASHA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
6. SRI. SURESH V.S
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
7. SRI. MALLESHA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
8. SRI V.S.MAHADEVSWAMY
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
VOLLAGERE VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
WA No. 894 of 2025
HC-KAR
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 315.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 PASSED IN WP No. 54869/2013 ON
THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND CONFIRM THE ORDER
DATED 12.09.2012 PASSED IN CASE No. L.R.F. No. 3783/74-
75 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, NANJANGUD,
MYSURU DISTRICT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
Though the matter is listed under caption 'Fresh
matter/s', with the consent of both the parties, we have
heard and disposed of this appeal finally.
2. The legal representative of respondent No.3 are
in appeal under Section 4 of High Court of Karnataka Act,
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
HC-KAR
calling in question the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.54869/2013.
3. The writ Court in the impugned order allowed
the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the Land
Tribunal and directed the Land Tribunal to register the
name of original petitioner Siddappa as tenant in respect
of 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.11 of Kathwadipura
Village in Nanjangud Taluk.
4. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the writ Court.
5. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of the
present appeal is as under:
This is the fifth round of litigation. On earlier four
occasions, the matter was remanded and repeatedly called
in question before the writ Court and remanded. The
learned Single Judge in order to put a quietus to the
dispute, heard the entire matter on merits.
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
HC-KAR
6. It is the case of the petitioners that he was the
rival claimant filed Form No.7 on 10.07.1978, claiming an
extent of 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.11. The original
respondent No.3 - Nagappa also filed Form No.7 on
25.06.1976, claiming 1 acre 5 guntas of land. However, he
filed another application on 15.01.1979 claiming entire
extent of 2 acres 10 guntas of land.
7. One Kempananjappa, who was the father of
Mallappa and Mallamma, was a tenant in the land. The
petitioner Siddappa - applicant was the son of Mallappa
whereas Nagappa, the other claimant was the foster son of
Mallamma. It is further contented that Mallamma had
purchased 1 acre of land from Sharadamma in 1961 and
upon death of Mallamma, Nagappa being his foster son
inherited the property and continued in possession of the
land. The entire extent of land is 2 acres 10 guntas in
Sy.No.11 and Mallamma was the owner of 1/2 property
under registered sale deed and in respect of other 1/2 of
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
HC-KAR
property i.e., 1 acre 5 guntas, both the claimant have filed
application, claiming occupancy rights.
8. It is further case of the petitioner that in the
RTC along with Mallamma, the name of the Siddappa has
been shown. Though the name of Nagappa has been
entered it is only with respect to one acre of land which
the Mallamma had purchased during her lifetime. It is
further case of the petitioner that, though landlady has
given statement, however, in view of earlier statement
given before the Tribunal, in the earlier round of litigation,
the landlady has clearly stated that Siddappa was the
tenant and now she has turned her entire version, stating
that it is Nagappa who is tenant of the land. In these
circumstances, this shaky statement cannot be given any
due weightage, while considering the claimant's
application. In terms of the provisions of the Land Reforms
Act, the person who is cultivating the land as on the
appointed day is required to be considered. In the case on
hand, the original petitioner Siddappa's name is found in
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
HC-KAR
the RTC in respect of 1 acre 5 guntas of land. The Tribunal
has swayed and given more weightage to the statement of
landlady and passed the order against the materials placed
before it.
9. The learned Single Judge after considering the
rival submissions was of the opinion that the statement
given by the landlady before the Tribunal is shaky and
cannot be given due weightage. The learned Single Judge
while reasoning his order which runs from Paragraph
Nos.30 to 36 has clearly stated that the evidence of
Sharadamma is completely untrustworthy as in one round
of litigation, she contends that Siddappa was the tenant
and in another she resiles from the earlier statement and
states that she does not even know Siddappa and it is
Nagappa who is cultivating the land.
10. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has opined
that, the rent receipts said to have been produced by
Sharadamma cannot be considered in view of inconsistent
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
HC-KAR
statement by her. The signature found on the statement
before the Land Tribunal is in English and whereas in all
rent receipts from the year 1970-1971 and 1974, the
signature was in Kannada. This creates doubt regarding
the rent receipts and in view of RTC standing in the name
of Siddappa, the learned Single judge having noticed that
the proceedings before the Land Tribunal being summary
proceedings and strict rules of evidence as in a original
suit is not applicable, on the basis of the records produced
by Siddappa, which were neither objected to by Nagappa
at any point of time nor did he cross-examine Siddappa
with regard to the said document, allowed the petition, set
aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and directed
to register the name of the Siddappa as tenant in respect
of 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.11 of Kathwadipura
village in Nanjangud Taluk. It is this order is called in
question by legal representatives of respondent No.3.
11. Heard Sri.B.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for
appellants and Sri.Mohammed Jaffar Sha, learned
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
HC-KAR
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and
2.
12. Sri.Sharath Kumar is not in dispute with regard
to fifth round of litigation. He is further not disputing the
fact that on earlier four occasions the matter was
remanded and called in question before this Court in writ
petitions. Though the learned counsel tried to impress
upon us by contending that the landlady has given
statement before the Land Tribunal that Nagappa is the
tenant and he has been cultivating the land as on the
appointed day. However, we are not convinced with the
argument of learned counsel, the reason being there are
two statements by said landlady Sharadamma. In the
earlier round of litigation she has stated that Siddappa was
the tenant of the land. In the next round of litigation, she
even gone to the extent of saying that she never came
across with Siddappa and it is Nagappa who is cultivating
the land. That apart in the RTC, the name of Mallamma,
Nagappa and Siddappa all were appearing. It is not in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
HC-KAR
dispute that Mallamma purchased 1 acre out of 2 acres 10
guntas of land from Sharadamma in 1961 under a
registered sale deed. Perhaps this may be the reason for
showing the name of Nagappa in the place of Mallamma
since he was a foster son.
13. In view of RTC which has got a presumptive
value in law wherein the name of Siddappa has been
shown as cultivator, has been rightly considered by the
learned Single Judge. No case has been made out to take
contra view than the one taken by learned Single Judge.
14. In view of settled position of law as well as the
provisions under the Land Reforms Act, since the name of
the applicant Siddappa available in the RTC and he filed an
application under Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights for
1 acre 5 guntas of land, the Tribunal must have considered
these aspects of the matter.
15. The learned Single Judge having given due
regard to the documentary evidence produced, more
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16247-DB
HC-KAR
especially the RTC has come to the conclusion that,
original petitioner Siddappa is the tenant cultivating the
land and allowed the petition. We find no infirmity in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
16. The appeal sans merit and accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
RR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
