A sale deed executed under fraudulent circumstances without the owner's consent is deemed null and void, and lack of participation by the defendant in court proceedings forfeits her right to contest the claims made.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 31.08.2017 as null and void and also sought for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. The very case of the plaintiffs/respondents before the Trial Court is that plaintiff No.1 was the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is the part and parcel of Sy.No.105/1 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas of D.Kalenahalli Village, Channarayapattana Taluk. The said land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas of Sy.No.105/1 was granted to plaintiff No.1 by the Tahasildar on 27.05.1978. Pursuant to the said grant, the khata of the property was entered in the name of plaintiff No.1. Out of total extent of 1 acre 32 guntas, plaintiff No.1 transferred the land to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas in favour of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff No.2 got alienated the said extent of property vide DC conversion order dated 01.04.2000. After getting the conversion, plaintiff No.2 formed 14 residential sites in the said land by obtaining permission from Town Municipality Council, Channarayapattana. Later on, plaintiff No.2 gifted site Nos.1, 2, 7 and 8 in favour of her son i.e., plaintiff No.3 under gift deed dated 12.12.2016. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of plaintiff No.3.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.3 is the Lab Technician and was working under the defendant. The defendant having the dominant status over plaintiff No.3, instigated the mind of plaintiff No.3 to form a partnership firm with an intention to grab the suit schedule property. In furtherance of the said motive, the partnership deed was executed on 02.01.2017 by the defendant with plaintiff No.3. The defendant brain washed the mind of plaintiff No.3 with an ambition to commence business of Super Specialty Hospital under the name and style of Jaipal Hospital in the suit schedule property and got executed the partnership deed. Further, the defendant with the same ill will and motive got registered another partnership deed on 30.08.2017 with plaintiff No.3 to commence a business of Super Specialty Hospital in the schedule property. The previous partnership deed dated 02.01.2017 was dissolved. Again on 30.08.2017, the defendant created sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property from the plaintiffs without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. When the partnership deed was executed on 30.08.2017, the question of execution of sale deed on 31.08.2017 did not arise at all. Without bringing into notice of the plaintiffs the defendant got executed sale deed and prior to the said sale deed she also transferred the suit schedule property in her name. The plaintiffs subsequently came to know that the defendant played a fraud with them and immediately took an action to institute suit and accordingly filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 31.08.2017 and for permanent injunction.

4. The defendant in pursuance of the suit summons appeared through the counsel and did not choose to file the written statement and contest the matter and even not cross- examined the witnesses. The Trial Court having considered the plaint averments, framed the point