Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1180 (KAR)

Jajakka v. B. V. Krishna Murthy

2013-10-08

JAWAD RAHIM

body2013
JUDGMENT : Dr. Jawad Rahim, J. 1. The legal heirs of original defendant 6-Jalappa have questioned the judgment in R.A. No. 43 of 1999 by which the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in OS. No. 43 of 1987 has been set aside declaring the appellant in the appeal B. Venkatarao since deceased by his legal heirs B.K. Nagaraju, B.K. Prakasha, B.K. Swarnalatha and B.K. Madhavi to be entitled to the decree of declaration of title and possession. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the records in supplementation thereto, which reveals B. Venkatarao along with his son B.V. Krishna Murthy had filed a suit in O.S. No. 43 of 1987 seeking a decree to declare that the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property described in the schedule and for permanent injunction against the defendants and alternatively sought for possession of the suit property from defendants and for mesne profits. 2. In support of the suit claim, he averred that Ejihalli Village was a Jodi village of which (the first plaintiff-B. Venkatarao) was of the sole Jodidar vide order dated 2-2-1963 in Case No. 27/59-60. The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B to the extent of 20 acres, 5 guntas in his favour apart from the other lands. Since then, he has been in physical possession and enjoyment and has been grazing the cattle. They were also been growing seasonal crops and groundnut. 3. During the course of general survey, a regular survey was conducted by the authorities overlooking the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition and passed some order demarcating an extent of 71 acres and 11 guntas of dry land including the extent of 20 acres and 5 guntas in land bearing Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B assigning it to Sy. No. 62 belonging to him. The lands referred to above were declared as gomala land belonging to the Government. The plaintiff noticed the discrepancy and the mistake and applied to rectify the error through his petition before the Tahsildar, Madhugiri on 21-10-1974. The Tahsildar, Madhugiri vide Order No. R.R.T. 224/75-76 noticed the error committed in the regular survey and referred the matter to the Survey Department on 15-7-1976. The plaintiff noticed the discrepancy and the mistake and applied to rectify the error through his petition before the Tahsildar, Madhugiri on 21-10-1974. The Tahsildar, Madhugiri vide Order No. R.R.T. 224/75-76 noticed the error committed in the regular survey and referred the matter to the Survey Department on 15-7-1976. He also demanded the back assessment of revenue to be collected from the plaintiff in a sum of Rs. 436.30 and phoding charges of Rs. 50/- and also mutation fee of Rs. 2/-. Plaintiff 1 claims to have paid the amount consequent to which the Survey Department bifurcated/phoded the extent of land corresponding to Survey Nos. 112/A and 112/B out of Sy. No. 62 and assigned new Nos. 70 and 71. The file was then returned to the Office of Tahsildar on 4-8-1980. The pahanies of the land for the succeeding years were mutated in the name of first plaintiff and shown it to be in his personal cultivation. 4. The plaintiff alleged that by overlooking plaintiffs clear title, the Government issued notification identifying land in Sy. No. 62 to an extent of 71 acres 11 guntas as the Government land proposed it would be disposed off by darkhasth to the deserving people. It is alleged, that such a notification was issued by the Government ignoring the order of the Tahsildar in No. R.R.T. 224/75-76 and also the order passed by the Inam Deputy Commissioner. In pursuance to the Notification, the Government appears to have allotted lands to defendants 2 to 12 in Sy. No. 62 covering an extent of 71 acres 11 guntas. 5. The plaintiff alleged, on the strength of such grant purported to have been made on 18-8-1978, the defendants 2 to 12 were indulging in illegal activities harassing plaintiffs 1 and 2 and interfering with their right to enjoy. 6. It is further averred the defendants 2 to 7 and 9 had, in the meanwhile filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Madhugiri for grant of occupancy rights in respect of several unidentifiable lands, forming plots in Sy. No. 62 on 31-12-1976, in which the first plaintiff was arrayed as respondent (owner/landlord) and they claim to be the tenants under him. The Land Tribunal conducted proceedings in L.R.M. Nos. 152, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162 and 163 rejecting the claim of tenancy by defendants 2 to 7 and 9 vide order dated 31-10-1984. 7. No. 62 on 31-12-1976, in which the first plaintiff was arrayed as respondent (owner/landlord) and they claim to be the tenants under him. The Land Tribunal conducted proceedings in L.R.M. Nos. 152, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162 and 163 rejecting the claim of tenancy by defendants 2 to 7 and 9 vide order dated 31-10-1984. 7. He further averred that he approached the Tahsildar several times through his petitions dated 4/5-10-1980 and 7-4-1981, then January 1985 and 20-5-1986, to cancel the darkhasth granted in the names of defendants 2 to 8 erroneously. It is alleged, there is no action on his complaint. Thus, cause of action was generated for him to file the suit to seek declaration of right, title and interest and for consequential injunction. 8. In the suit, he brought the State of Karnataka as the first defendant while the allottees of the land defendants 2 to 12. The defendants entered contest. The State-first defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint but admitted that the Government had granted land within Sy. No. 62 under darkhasth treating the land as gomala land, and disputed that the plaintiff has the cause of action and also described the suit claim as barred by time. 9. Defendants 2 to 12 through separate written statements denied the plaintiff's claim and they also denied that there was a jodidar of the village and was granted lands under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 or that he was in possession of the same. They admitted only to the extent of grant in their favour, by virtue of Government notification in the year 1974. Based on material proposition in the pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed following issues for consideration: (i) Whether plaintiffs prove that plaintiff 1 was the sole Jodidar of Ejihalli? (ii) Whether plaintiffs further prove that occupancy rights to suit lands were conferred on 1st plaintiff? (iii) Whether plaintiffs further proves that 1st plaintiff is sole owner of suit land? (iv) Whether plaintiffs further prove that they are in lawful possession of suit lands on the date of suit? (v) Whether plaintiffs further prove that old Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B constitute new Survey Nos. 70 and 71? (vi) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for in respect of suit lands in view of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964? (v) Whether plaintiffs further prove that old Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B constitute new Survey Nos. 70 and 71? (vi) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for in respect of suit lands in view of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964? (vii) Whether the defendants prove that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? (viii) Whether defendants prove that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (ix) Whether suit is barred by limitation? (x) Whether suit is not maintainable for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 properly? (xi) What relief or what order? 10. In the enquiry that ensued, the first plaintiff tendered evidence as P.W. 1 and placed reliance on 23 documents while, defendant 1 examined its witness as D.W. 1 while other defendants tendered evidence as D.Ws. 2 to 10. 11. Analyzing the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge opined that plaintiffs have failed to make out a case for grant of declaration of his title and thus dismissed the suit. 12. Assailing it, he was in appeal in R.A. No. 43 of 1999 reiterating the plea to substantiate that he had lawful title and possession of the land in question. The learned Appellate Judge, on reappraisal of the evidence on record raised following points for consideration: (i) Whether the appellants prove that the schedule properties granted in favour of their grandfather late B. Venkatarao under the document -- Ex. P. 1? (ii) Whether the respondents prove that the schedule land granted in their favour and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court called for interference? (iv) What order? 13. The learned Appellate Judge, being of the opinion that the material evidence placed by the plaintiff substantiated he was granted land to an extent of 20 acres 5 guntas in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B was which erroneously ignored by the Trial Court and further accepting plaintiffs case that defendants 2 to 12 may be the allottees of land but not allottees of land in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B granted decree, setting aside. In the resultant position, by the judgment in appeal, the suit of the plaintiff stood decreed assailing which, the defendants are in appeal. Nos. 112/A and 112/B granted decree, setting aside. In the resultant position, by the judgment in appeal, the suit of the plaintiff stood decreed assailing which, the defendants are in appeal. R.S.A. No. 428 of 2009 is filed by the legal heirs of Jajappa the 6th defendant in the suit O.S. No. 43 of 1999 while R.S.A. No. 427 of 2009 is by other defendants in the suit. 14. These appeals are admitted to consider the following questions of law: (i) Whether the undescribed suit land measuring 20 acres and 5 guntas, which the plaintiff claimed under Ex. P. 1 can be identified to be land described in the suit schedule land? (ii) Whether the order dated 2-2-1963 of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition granting occupancy rights under Section 9 of Government Gomal land to plaintiff under Ex. P. 1 is valid in law and not void? (iii) Whether the evidence under the documents -- Exs. P. 5 and P. 6 the surveyor's report and sketch saying that new Sy. Nos. 70 and 71 is given to the land of plaintiff under Ex. P. 1 for old Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B in Sy. No. 62 is admissible in evidence which goes against the defendants/appellants without the examination of the authors of Exs. P. 5 and P. 6? (iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is filed with in limitation of law inspite of the admitted facts that cause of action arose on 31-12-1976 and suit filed on 17-2-1987 for declaration of title and injunction, after 11 years of cause of action? (v) Whether the plaintiff's suit is not bad in law for non-joinder of the necessary parties as defendants, inspite the admitted fact that other persons also than the defendants are granted lands along with the defendants within the suit schedule land boundaries and are in possession of the same as the First Appellate Court's decree has gone against them also? (vi) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in law under the evidence on record and grounds of appeal to come to a different conclusion from that of the Trial Court and to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decree the plaintiffs suit? 15. I had the advantage of hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel on both sides and examined the records in supplementation thereto. 16. 15. I had the advantage of hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel on both sides and examined the records in supplementation thereto. 16. As recorded supra and in the preamble to the judgment, the plaintiff had filed a suit along with one B.V. Krishna Murthy seeking a decree for declaration based not only that he (the first plaintiff) was a Jodidar of the Ejihalli Village but also by virtue of the allotment of land made by the Competent Authority. The assertive claim advanced by him is based on the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition dated 2-2-1963 in Case No. 27 of 1959-1960 which evidences the grant of land in his favour. That order is used by him to show lawful acquisition of the property in the manner known to law and also to claim his right over it. According to him, besides being a Jodidar of the Village Ejihalli, he was granted land under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and therefore grant in his favour is unimpeachable and was subsisting when the Government is said to have issued Notification in the year 1974 proposing to grant land in Sy. No. 62 to two reserved individuals and darkhasth. Therefore, it could be noticed that the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the land to an extent of 20 acres and 5 guntas forming part of Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B. According to him, the Government had erroneously or by inadvertent mistake, did not mention the land in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B but described the lands as part of Sy. No. 62 and notified it as for allotment. This mistake was noticed by him and he applied to the Tahsildar vide petition dated 21-10-1974. 17. It is further to be noticed that the proceedings before the Tahsildar and the ultimate order passed by him in No. R.R.T. 224/75-76 had not been brought into question by either the State of Karnataka or defendants 2 to 12 in the suit. None of the parties to the lis disputed that survey was conducted on 15-7-1976 as averred in the plaint. The defendants particularly, the first defendant-State did not dispute that it had collected from plaintiff 1 a sum of Rs. 436.30/- as back assessment and phoding charges of Rs. 50/- in terms of the order of Tahsildar in respect of the land in question. The defendants particularly, the first defendant-State did not dispute that it had collected from plaintiff 1 a sum of Rs. 436.30/- as back assessment and phoding charges of Rs. 50/- in terms of the order of Tahsildar in respect of the land in question. It is also did not bring in dispute that Survey Department by virtue of the order of Tahsildar, bifurcated the land showing Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B as to be out of Sy. No. 62 and then assigned Sy. Nos. 70 and 71. By that act, the confusion or the mistake in reference to survey numbers was removed and the right of the plaintiff was acknowledged and recorded as evidenced from the office note dated 4-8-1980. The revenue records produced by plaintiff 1 bear testimony to the fact that the Revenue Authorities mutated entries in his name for the subsequent years also showing him as cultivator. 18. As against such material evidence, the defendants relied on the darkhasth, by virtue of which land for apportioned for allotment in Sy. No. 62 and was allotted to each of them. Jalappa was the 6th defendant who tendered evidence as D.W. 5. According to him the grant in favour of the plaintiff was imaginary. There is absolutely no material to show that 20 acres and 5 guntas of land formed part of Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B. 19. According to the evidence of defendants, there was no land assigned to Sy. No. 112/A or 112/B nor there is record to show that the lands formed part of Sy. No. 62 or that Sy. Nos. 70 and 71 was assigned subsequently. In short, it was urged that no doubt the first appearance, it may look as if the Special Commissioner, Inam Abolition had allotted the land to an extent of 20 acres 5 guntas to the plaintiff by the order dated 2-2-1963 in Case No. 27 of 1959-1960, that order was ab initio void as it pertains to lands in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B which was non-existent. Regarding the Government Notification issued in the year 1974, the defendants contend that, that is a valid proceeding of the Government in pursuance to which the lands measuring 70 acres was bifurcated into a small plots, assigned and allotted to them. The learned Trial Judge had found no favour with the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff marked as Ex. Regarding the Government Notification issued in the year 1974, the defendants contend that, that is a valid proceeding of the Government in pursuance to which the lands measuring 70 acres was bifurcated into a small plots, assigned and allotted to them. The learned Trial Judge had found no favour with the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff marked as Ex. P. 1, the order of allotment of land to him, Ex. P. 2 the Endorsement, the Revenue entries vide. Exs. P. 3 and P. 4 and the Nivedana Patra of Surveyor vide Ex. P. 5. 20. The learned Trial Judge did not feel appropriate to give any credence to Ex. P. 7-the certified copy of the proceedings of the Land Tribunal on which the plaintiff relied to show that defendants 2 to 7 and 9 had sought registration of occupancy rights claiming to be the tenants under the plaintiff. In the resultant position, the learned Trial Judge disbelieving that the plaintiff was allotted of 20 acres 5 guntas dismissed the suit. 21. I have referred to the documentary evidence relied on by both sides for easy reference and to analyze whether the findings of the Appellate Court is justified. Amongst the documentary evidence, the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner Ex. P. 1 speaks to the fact that the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition in his proceedings had listed out the grant of land to the first appellant. He had not granted land in Sy. Nos. 14, 25, 34, 42, 45, 55, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 72, 73, 74, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 93, 97, 99 and 109 and it is material to note that the order records the fact that when the village originally granted to Ramabhatta, as per the entry in the quit rent was sold by the Revenue Authorities for recovery of arrears of revenue to the Government, one Ramaiah Setty purchased it in the public auction. The first plaintiff-B. Venkata Rao purchased the entire village from Ramaiah Setty under the registered Sale Deed No. 1628, dated 22-5-1945 and he was in possession and enjoyment. The first plaintiff-B. Venkata Rao purchased the entire village from Ramaiah Setty under the registered Sale Deed No. 1628, dated 22-5-1945 and he was in possession and enjoyment. He was the sole Jodidhar of the village and the lands were registered in his favour as occupant under Section 9 of the Act and the order also refers to the fact that after coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act, appropriate proceedings were initiated and the land in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B with an extent of 120 acres and 29 guntas was shown as gomala land in the assessment Register. Such an entry was due to inadvertent mistake as unserved and unsettled village. The claim of B. Venkata Rao was for 20 acres and 5 guntas. Thus, an enquiry was conducted and on finding that land in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B was not a gomala land. Learned Deputy Commissioner, on detailed enquiry found the Government had classified in the year 1885 itself as uncultivable lands only to the extent of 85 acres 26 guntas. Thus, he opined that out of 120 acres, 85 acres of land was declared as uncultivable lands and the remaining was declared as dry, wet and garden lands. The land to an extent of 20 acres 5 guntas was therefore a cultivable land and consequently the wrong entry in the records that it was uncultivable lands was incorrect. So also, he held that describing the entire land in village as gomal land was incorrect and consequently he passed an order declaring 20 acres and 5 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B to be the cultivable lands of plaintiff and he registered it in his favour under Section 9 of the Act. As far as claim in respect of Sy. Nos. 98 and 96, an extent of 2-18 of land was granted about which we are not concerned. 22. Therefore, Ex. P. 1 relied by the plaintiff had necessarily to be taken into consideration to answer the issue as to whether the plaintiff has substantiated lawful acquisition. The learned Trial Judge appears to be impressed by the defence that 1974 Notification declared the land in Sy. Nos. 70 and 71 out of Sy. No. 62 to be gomal lands and offered it for allotment. Accepting that evidence as more authentic and reliable, Ex. P. 1 has been eschewed from consideration. The learned Trial Judge appears to be impressed by the defence that 1974 Notification declared the land in Sy. Nos. 70 and 71 out of Sy. No. 62 to be gomal lands and offered it for allotment. Accepting that evidence as more authentic and reliable, Ex. P. 1 has been eschewed from consideration. But I find no reason assigned by the learned Trial Judge for not giving due credence to Ex. P. 1. Needless to record that it is the State of Karnataka, who was the first defendant who could have admitted or denied the authenticity of those proceedings. The Government has not disputed that the said order is authorized by the designated officer appointed as Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam abolition and had due competence to adjudicate upon the claim and the order was quasi-judicial order in performance of statutory duty and had to be accepted unless set aside or annulled in any further appeal actions. As a consequence of ignoring the said document, the contention of defendants 2 to 10 that they are the allottees of the land has prevailed in the mind of the learned Trial Judge. No doubt, the defendant did place before the Trial Court the allotment made in their favour but the question is whether such allotments sustainable in view of Ex. P. 1? 23. The next question before the Trial Court was also about the identity of the property. Was the land granted to plaintiff part of Sy. No. 62, 70 or 71? and whether Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B existed? 24. The plaintiff had placed reliance on Ex. P. 6, a sketch which shows how the land in Sy. Nos. 70 and 71 are carved out of Sy. No. 62 and similarly the Tahsildar vide his order passed on 6-10-1981 has also held that the land in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B are part of Sy. No. 62 and accordingly ordered rectification. There is no answer from the State Government as to how it could ignore that order to issue notifications in the year 1974. The first defendant-State of Karnataka has not disputed the competence of Tahsildar to adjudicate on the grievance of the plaintiff about wrong entries and wrong survey numbers. So also, it is not disputed that the Revenue Authorities have passed order vide Ex. P. 23 also to remove the discrepancy in the survey numbers. 25. The first defendant-State of Karnataka has not disputed the competence of Tahsildar to adjudicate on the grievance of the plaintiff about wrong entries and wrong survey numbers. So also, it is not disputed that the Revenue Authorities have passed order vide Ex. P. 23 also to remove the discrepancy in the survey numbers. 25. Sri M. Rangappa, learned Counsel for the appellants herein pointed out to the evidence on record to contend that none of the documents referred to above are relied by the plaintiff establishing existence of land in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, no doubt, refers to Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B, it does not tally with the subsequent revenue proceedings, specially the notification by the Government. He submits that Ex. P. 6 does not refer to the land in Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B. It merely refers to Sy. No. 62 of which, Sy. Nos. 70 and 71 have been carved out. Therefore, in the absence of any proceedings or documentary evidence to show that their existed at no point of time Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B such a plea from plaintiff was not acceptable. 26. There is certainly substance in the contention of Sri Rangappa, learned Counsel as there is no document on record from both sides to show location of Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B but the evidence in its entirety has to be taken into consideration to decide whether the plaintiff had established grant of 20 acres and 5 guntas of land in Ejihalli Village. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition Act is at the earliest and subsequent Act by the Government to allot the land is undoubtedly without verification and giving opportunity to the plaintiff. The Government has declared the land in Sy. Nos. 70 and 71 to be available for allotment. It is carved out of Sy. No. 62. If you go by Ex. P. 6, map of the village, it shows that it is the location and it is carved out of Sy. No. 62. This issue gets clarified from the order of Tahsildar which is at Ex. P. 2, the endorsement of the Tahsildar. Similarly, in the proceedings of the subsequent years also the Revenue Authorities mutated entries in his name from the year 1980-1981 from the order, Ex. P. 4. No. 62. This issue gets clarified from the order of Tahsildar which is at Ex. P. 2, the endorsement of the Tahsildar. Similarly, in the proceedings of the subsequent years also the Revenue Authorities mutated entries in his name from the year 1980-1981 from the order, Ex. P. 4. The fact that enquiry in No. R.R.T. 224/75-76 ordered registration of his name is not in dispute and if he go by location of the land, all doubts would be removed besides defendants 2 to 7 and 9 on their own volition had applied to the Land Tribunal seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of 20 acres and 5 guntas of land in which they made a categorical statement that they are the tenants under the first plaintiff-B. Venkata Rao. The proceedings in L.R.M. Nos. 152, 158, 163/70-77 is the result of Form 7 filed by defendants 2 to 7 and 9 in which, plaintiff 1 is described as the landlord. All the proceedings are at Ex. P. 7 and it is further noticed that the parties were in writ action again before this Court and this Court had allowed the writ petition setting aside the order granting occupancy rights and remanded back the cases for fresh disposal and after remand on 31-10-1984, the Land Tribunal, Madhugiri rejected the application of defendants 2, 7 and 9. This negates their claim that they are in physical possession and on the other hand establishes the contention of the first plaintiff that he was not only the owner of the land to an extent of 20 acres and 5 guntas but was a regretted under the Inams Abolition Act. His claim therefore could not have been negated by the State of Karnataka by indulging in allotting lands to the defendants ignoring the preferential rights of the plaintiffs. 27. There is further evidence on record which supports the ocular testimony of plaintiffs 1 and 2. There is no need to advert to the ocular testimony as the decision to grant decree of declaration as sought by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 would rest documentary evidence itself. 28. Before parting, it would also be necessary to refer to the proceedings in this appeal dated 14-3-2011, wherein this Court opined that there is some doubt about the location of the land and its boundaries which was the subject-matter of the claim from the plaintiff. 28. Before parting, it would also be necessary to refer to the proceedings in this appeal dated 14-3-2011, wherein this Court opined that there is some doubt about the location of the land and its boundaries which was the subject-matter of the claim from the plaintiff. This Court opined in view of peculiarity in the claim made by both parties i.e., in respect of the boundary dispute, ordinarily Civil Court cannot resolve the dispute even if it is decided either of the party has to lose. Since grant made in favour of both the parties is undisputable, on the basis of exhibits placed before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, it is just and proper to direct the Tahsildar of Madhugiri Taluk to make a survey on the basis of Exs. P. 1 to P. 5 and also Exs. D. 11 to D. 40, demarcating the land in favour of the respective parties and make report to this Court by 11-5-2011. 29. In terms of that order of this Court, the jurisdictional Tahsildar has sent a report which in substance shows that he has formulated 5 issues and on conducting the local inspection has opined that though the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition, Bangalore has observed that Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B is not gomal land and is in enjoyment of the plaintiff and granted it to him on his application dated 27-8-1997, the sketch of Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B is not available. On that basis, he opined that Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B is not in existence in the given village sketch and hence, the application submitted by inamdars to register their names is not in order and the documents supporting it is not valid. He has relied on the village map of the year 1932 and has noticed from the Survey Department entries in 1966 that Ejihalli Village was assigned last Survey Number as 69 and there is no reference to Sy. Nos. 112/A and 112/B. Sy. No. 62 is PKhot Kharab, totally measuring 71 acres and 11 guntas which he felt was authentic. Ultimately he entertained a doubt about the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in Case No. 27/59-60, dated 2-2-1963, Ex. P. 1 by which the plaintiff was granted lands. Nos. 112/A and 112/B. Sy. No. 62 is PKhot Kharab, totally measuring 71 acres and 11 guntas which he felt was authentic. Ultimately he entertained a doubt about the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in Case No. 27/59-60, dated 2-2-1963, Ex. P. 1 by which the plaintiff was granted lands. From the answer to four questions recorded by him, it could be seen that the Tahsildar did not understand the scope of commission issued to him. He was directed by the Court to conduct local inspection only and report. 30. The object was to determine the boundaries of the land allotted to the defendants and identify the location of the land granted to plaintiff 1. Inspire of complying with the directions issued in the commission, the Tahsildar has virtually sat in the judgment over the orders of the Statutory Authorities under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act and has expressed doubt about the order Ex. P. 1. The report of Commissioner is therefore not in terms of the Commission issued by this Court and is also indicative of the personal opinion and not report of fact-finding. In the result, I am satisfied that the Commissioner's report being not in terms of the commission issued by this Court has to be rejected. The learned Appellate Judge was right in exercising powers conferred on him by Rules 24 and 25 of Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in reappraising the evidence on record to reach a logical conclusion that the order of the learned Trial Judge dismissing the suit was erroneous and was against the material evidence on record. For the reasons discussed above, I answer the questions of law framed in these appeals in favour of respondents and against the appellants. The appeals fails and are accordingly dismissed, confirming the judgment of the Appellate Court in R.A. No. 43 of 1999. No cost.