On that basis the District Judge rejected the claim made by the appellant.
Thammaiah was shown as son of Rawala Ningana Rawala, i.e. grand son of Rawala Ninga.
33, 38, 41 and 130 of yeliyun village and Survey No.
He also examined the oral evidence put forth before the Court in the absence of any document in support of the claim.
On that basis he held that the claim of respondents 2 to 4 was nightly rejected by the Tehsildar.
He held ultimately that respondents 2 to 4 having placed numberreliable 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.
The Tehsildan made an order on 22nd July, 1981 re granting the Neeraganti Inam Lands companyprised in survey Nos.
It is against this order, this appeal has been preferred by special leave.
As such they cannot be held to be either authorised holders holding the lands orholders of village office on the appointed date.
49 of Yerehalli Village in favour of the appellant.
However, he numbericed that the appellant is number an authorized holder inasmuch as the appellant had number been appointed as Neeraganti by any order.
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.
On the claim made by the appellant he companycluded 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.
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.
The High Court upheld that part of the order by which the learned District Judge rejected the claim 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.
The Act was brought into effect from 1st February, 1963.
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 numberdocument to show tha 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.
The appellant as well as respondents 2 to 4 preferred Revision Petitions arising under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Rajendra Babu, J. 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 hereinaften referred to as the Act .
