JUDGMENT S.Vishwajith Shetty, J. - The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.07.1981 made in No.LR.AGK. 34:153:153A:125 by respondent No.2- Tribunal vide Annexure-D. 2. Brief facts of the case are, petitioner is the tenant of land bearing R.S.No.120/1+2B measuring 2 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute'). Respondent No.3 who is the brother of the petitioner is the landlord of the land in dispute. Petitioner alleges that he has been in actual possession and cultivation of the land in dispute ever since the year 1956 and he has been paying the rent every year to respondent No.3. The name of the petitioner is entered in the revenue records of the land in dispute in the cultivators column from the year 1964-65 to 1968-69. 3. In the year 1969, respondent No.4 clandestinely managed to get his name entered in the revenue records with the help of village accountant and this was challenged by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 09.11.1973 vide Annexure-B set aside the entries made in the name of respondent No.4 and ordered to enter the name of the petitioner in the record of rights of the land in dispute. 4. In the year 1968, respondent No.4 allegedly tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land in dispute by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, petitioner had filed O.S.No.125/1968 before the Court of Additional Munisiff, Gokak against respondent No.4 and his family members seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and cultivation of the land in dispute. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 09.03.1971. The regular appeal filed by respondent No.4 challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.03.1971 made in O.S.No.105/1968 was numbered as R.A.No.125/1971 and the said regular appeal was dismissed by the first appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 31.05.1973 and the same has attained finality. 5. After coming into force of the Karnakaka Land Reforms Act (Amendment Act 1 of 1974), the petitioner and respondent No.4 filed separate Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights of the land in dispute. 5. After coming into force of the Karnakaka Land Reforms Act (Amendment Act 1 of 1974), the petitioner and respondent No.4 filed separate Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights of the land in dispute. Respondent No.2-Tribunal vide its order dated 30.07.1981 had rejected the claim of the petitioner and granted occupancy rights of the land in dispute in favour of respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.07.1981, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.20546/1981 before this Court. 6. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was constituted and therefore, the said writ petition was transferred to the jurisdictional Land Reforms Appellate Authority and numbered as R.A.No.918/1987. Subsequent to abolition of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the petitioner had filed Civil Petition No.354/1994 before this Court with a prayer to transfer the appeal from the Land Reforms Appellate Authority to this Court and hear the same as writ petition. Accordingly, the same was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.7102/2005. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is a tenant in occupation and cultivation of the land in dispute under respondent No.3 who is his brother and since his brother is settled in Gokak town, the land in dispute was leased to the petitioner in the year 1956 and since then he has been cultivating the land in dispute and paying rent to respondent No3 regularly. He submits that respondent No.4 was never in possession and cultivation of the land in dispute and the Tribunal without properly appreciating the judgment and decree passed by the jurisdictional civil Court has erred in granting the occupancy rights of the land in dispute to respondent No.4. He submits that the civil Courts have given a categorical finding that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and cultivation of the land in dispute and the plea of sub-tenancy by respondent No.4 has been negatived by the civil Courts. 8. The entries in the revenue records which were managed to be transferred in the name of respondent No.4 in the year 1969 was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and the orders of the civil Court and the Assistant Commissioner are much prior to 01.03.1974 and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the said orders and granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gajanan Mahadev Hegde Vs Ramakrishna Jatti Naik, (1985) ILR(Kar) 3490 . 9. He further submits that the landlord has given a statement orally as well as in writing admitting tenancy of the petitioner and he has stated that respondent No.4 is a stranger and he is not a tenant of the land in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in granting occupancy rights to respondent No.4 and therefore, he prays to quash the impugned order and grant occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.4 was not his tenant at any point of time and the land in dispute was not leased by him to respondent No.4. 11. Learned HCGP has argued in support of the impugned order. He submits that the Tribunal is justified in granting occupancy rights of the land in dispute to respondent No.4 on the basis of the available material on record. It is his contention that the orders passed by the civil Courts are not binding on the Tribunal and the Tribunal being a fact finding authority has independently assessed the material evidence available on record and has rightly granted occupancy rights of the land in dispute in favour of respondent No.4. 12. I have carefully considered the rival arguments addressed by the learned counsels and also perused the material evidence available on record. 13. The revenue records of the land in dispute stood in the name of the petitioner from the year 1964- 65 onwards and only in the year 1969, the name of respondent No.4 was entered in the cultivators column and prior to the same, the name of the petitioner was entered in the cultivators column. The entry made in the name of respondent No.4 was challenged by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 09.11.1973 has set aside the entries which were made in the name of the respondent No.4 and directed to continue the name of the petitioner in the record of rights of the land in dispute. Pursuant to the said order, the name of respondent No.4 was deleted and the name of the petitioner was continued in the revenue records of the land in dispute. Pursuant to the said order, the name of respondent No.4 was deleted and the name of the petitioner was continued in the revenue records of the land in dispute. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was not questioned by respondent No.4 and the same has attained finality. 14. The material on record would also go to show that, in the year 1968 when respondent No.4 and his family members tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land in dispute by the petitioner, he had filed O.S.No.105/1968 before the jurisdictional civil Court for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 09.03.1971. The regular appeal filed by respondent No.4 in R.A.No.125/1971 came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.1973. The same was not questioned by respondent No.4. In the suit as well as in the regular appeal, there is a specific finding that the petitioner is in lawful possession and cultivation of the land in dispute and the plea of respondent No.4that he was a sub-tenant in occupation and cultivation of the land in dispute has been rejected by both the Courts. The judgment and decree in the civil proceedings as well as the order of the Assistant Commissioner in the revenue proceedings are much earlier to coming into force of Amendment Act 1 of 1974. The finding of the civil Courts as well as of the Assistant Commissioner have attained finality. This Court in the case of Gajanan Mahadev Hegde (supra) has observed as under: "Once a decree for permanent injunction has been passed, it would be binding on the defendants of that suit and also on the legal representatives of one of the defendants, if he happens to die thereafter. There is nothing in the provisions of the Land Reforms Act to make such decrees null and void, ineffective, illegal or unenforceable. So long as the decree for permanent injunction stands good and holds the floor, it would not be open for the judgment-debtors to contend that they are still in possession of the properties as tenants and that they are entitled to get occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. So long as that decree holds the floor, they are bound to obey it. So long as that decree holds the floor, they are bound to obey it. Any attempt to disobey that decree would naturally attract the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure." Under the circumstances, respondent No.2-Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the finding of fact given by the civil Courts. 15. The Tribunal has observed in its order that the petitioner has admitted the possession of the land in dispute by respondent No.4. The deposition of the petitioner before the Tribunal has been produced vide Annexure-E. A perusal of the same does not show that the petitioner has admitted possession of the land in dispute by respondent No.4 anywhere. Therefore, the said finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the available material on record. Moreover, the landlord has admitted that the petitioner is his tenant and he is in possession and cultivation of the land in dispute. He has also stated that respondent No.4 is a stranger and he was not a tenant of the land in dispute at any point of time. Except the revenue entries which stood in the name of respondent No.4 for a short period which was subsequently set aside by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.4 has not produced any material before the Tribunal to establish his possession and cultivation of the land in dispute as a tenant. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal had completely erred in granting occupancy rights of the land in dispute in favour of respondent No.4. 16. In normal circumstances, in a case of rival tenancy, whenever the order passed by the Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of one of the claimant is set aside, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to hold a fresh enquiry. In the case on hand, from the material available on record, it is seen that the land in dispute originally belonged to the family of respondent No.4 and father of the petitioner and respondent No.3 had purchased the same from the family of respondent No.4. 17. A reading of paragraph 12 of the judgment passed in R.A.No.125/1971 would go to show that land bearing R.S.No.102 totally measuring 10 acres belonged to the family of respondent No.4 and out of the same, an extent of 2 acres was sold to the father of the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein. 17. A reading of paragraph 12 of the judgment passed in R.A.No.125/1971 would go to show that land bearing R.S.No.102 totally measuring 10 acres belonged to the family of respondent No.4 and out of the same, an extent of 2 acres was sold to the father of the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein. In spite of such a sale made by the family of respondent No.4 in favour of the father of the petitioner and respondent No.3, possession and cultivation of the land in dispute by respondent No.4 cannot be believed. In addition to the same, the landlord has admitted the tenancy of the petitioner and except few revenue entries which have been subsequently set aside by the Assistant Commissioner, no document has been produced by respondent No.4 to establish his possession and cultivation of the land in dispute. Respondent No.3 who is the owner of the land in dispute has not questioned the impugned order granting occupancy right of the land in dispute to respondent No.4. 18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.A.Subba Rao (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs Balarame Gowda and others, (1999) 1 KarLJ 206 (DB) has observed that, when there is sufficient evidence on record to decide the case finally, it is not necessary to remand the case. Remanding the matter again and again will not only procrastinate the litigation and it makes the party to spend heavy amounts and ultimately to lose the source of livelihood. That is not the scope of the justice system. 19. Under the circumstances, having regard to the material available on record and considering the fact that the litigation is almost five decades old, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of Form No.7 filed by the rival applicants afresh. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, Form No.7 filed by respondent No.4 is liable to be rejected and Form No.7 filed by the petitioner has to be allowed and consequently the occupancy rights of the land in dispute has to be granted in his favour. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.07.1981 passed by respondent No.2-Tribunal granting occupancy rights of the land in dispute in favour of respondent No.4 is quashed. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.07.1981 passed by respondent No.2-Tribunal granting occupancy rights of the land in dispute in favour of respondent No.4 is quashed. Form No.7 filed by the petitioner is allowed and occupancy rights of the land in dispute is granted in favour of the petitioner and the Tribunal is directed to issue Form No.10 to the petitioner in accordance with law.