KEMPAIAH Vs. CHIKKABORAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of certain proceedings initiated by two rival claimants, namely, the appellant on the one hand and respondents 2 to 4 on the other before the Tehsildar under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Act was brought into effect from 1st February, 1963. The Tehsildar made an order on 22nd July, 1981 re-granting the 'Neeraganti' Inam Lands comprised in survey Nos. 33, 38, 41 and 130 of Yeliyur Village and Survey No. 49 of Yerehalli village in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents 2 to 4 preferred an appeal to the District Judge in respect of Neeraganti Inam lands. On appeal the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the grant made in favour of the appellant. At the same time, the learned District Judge also held that respondents 2 to 4 are not descendants of the original barawardar and thus are not holders of village office. He also held that they did not perform the duties of village office of Neeraganti at any time much less did they held the lands attached by way of inam to that office. One Rawala Ninga was the owner of original barawardar of the Neeraganti of the two villages Yeliyur and Yerehalli as per Ex. D1 and D2, the Barabaluthi registers of the respective villages. Respondents 2 to 4 claim that they are the descendants of original Barawardar. Various documents put forth in the proceedings were critically examined by the learned District Judge and he held that these documents would show that Jatta Boyi son of Rawala Ninga, Thammaiah son of Rawala Ningana Rawala and Linga son of Mudda Boyiwere were enjoying the Neeraganti Inam lands and rendering Neeraganti services. Thammaiah was shown as son of Rawala Ningana Rawala, i.e. grand son of Rawala Ninga. The documents disproved the case of respondents 2 to 4 that Thammaiah was great grand son of Rawala Ninga. The District Judge also held that there was no document to show the relationship of respondents 2 to 4 or to show that they actually performed the 'Neeraganti' work or that they were in possession of Neeraganti Inam lands at any time. He also examined the oral evidence put forth before the Court in the absence of any document in support of the claim. He held ultimately that respondents 2 to 4 having placed no reliable evidence to show that they are the descendants of the barawardar or that they were at any time performing Neeraganti services or that they were in possession of Inam lands. As such they cannot be held to be either authorised holders holding the lands or holders of village office on the appointed date. On that basis he held that the claim of respondents 2 to 4 was rightly rejected by the Tehsildar.

(2.) On the claim made by the appellant he concluded on a careful examination of the documents produced before him that the kirdi extracts which show that the appellant had been paying land revenue for the Neeraganti Inam lands from 1950-51 and therefore it would appear that he has been in possession of the Inam lands from about 10 to 12 years prior to the appointed date. However, he noticed that the appellant is not an authorised holder inasmuch as the appellant had not been appointed as Neeraganti by any order. Even if he had been performing the duties of Neeraganti on the appointed date, there was no evidence to show that he was holder of a village office and, therefore, he had no right to the office in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act. On that basis, the District Judge rejected the claim made by the appellant.

(3.) The appellant as well as respondents 2 to 4 preferred Revision Petitions arising under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court upheld that part of the order by which the learned District Judge rejected the claim of the appellant. However, on the claim by respondents 2 to 4 the High Court allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the order made by the learned District Judge and allowed the claim of respondents 2 to 4 for re-grant of the lands in question. It is against this order, this appeal has been preferred by special leave.