CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Nanjangud, constituted under the Karnataka land Reforms Act against the order dated 30-3-1988 passed in Appeal bearing No. NIL presented to it against the order of the Land Tribunal, Yelandur, dated 18-2-1987. ( 2 ) THE Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right to the applicant before it, the present revision-petitioner, in respect of Sy. No. 414/2 and 415/2 of kesthur village, each measuring 20 guntas. The Appellate Authority after permitting the appellant to lead additional evidence, reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal and set-aside the order conferring occupancy rights on the revision-petitioner. There fore the present revision. ( 3 ) AS a rule, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Refo ms Act, will not sit as a second court of appeal. it will be open to the aggrieved parties to invoke the revisional jurisdiction only in regard to errors of jurisdiction or to avoid a grossly unjust order. ( 4 ) IT is seen from the order of the land Tribunal even his own witness had not testified clearly whether the tenant- applicant before the Land Tribunal, was cultivating the lands in question as a tenant or as an agricultural labourer. On such parole evidence against the entries in the pahanies, the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights ignoring the oral evidence corroborating the land owner's version that he was the land owner who was cultivating the land for a long number of vears. That witness of the land owner was not at all cross-examined by the revision petitioner, though opportunity was given. ( 5 ) IN the additional evidence produced before the Appellate Authority, the land owner got his title deed marked as wellas tendered parole evidence of neighbouring land owners and cultivators. While the title deed undoubtedly established his title to the property, it also spoke of his possession and it was supported by the entries in the pahanies that he was the cultivator of the said land Accepting that evidence, the appellate Authority has given a finding in favour of the land owner being the cultivator and not accepting the version put forward by the tenant. ( 6 ) THE Appellate Authority has further derived support from the fact that another application filed in Form No. 7 by the tenant for registration of occupancy rights did not disclose the fact of his being a tenant of the lands which has become the subject-matter of this revision petition. That application came to be disposed of. ( 7 ) REGARD being had to the fact that the Appellate Authority had the advantage of recording the evidence and appreciating the evidence not only recorded by it but also recorded by the Land Tribunal, this court in revisional jurisdiction will not again reappreciate and come to a different conclusion. The findings of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Authority must be given its due weight. Revision petition is therefore rejected. --- *** --- .