The First Appellate Court's judgment is set aside due to failure to comply with procedural requirements, necessitating remand for a proper examination of the case under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2013, passed in R.A.No.159/2012 by the learned Principal District Judge, Mysore.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondent was the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from Bandigowda S/o Siddegowda under the registered sale deed on 14.08.1992. It is contended that defendant No.1, being the wife of Bandigowda, had affixed her signature as a witness to the registered sale deed dated 14.08.1992. That, ever since the date of execution of the registered sale deed, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff approached the Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short ‘the MUDA’) on 28.12.2002 to obtain the title deed in her name regarding the suit schedule property. After the demise of Bandigowda, defendant No.1, by swearing to a false affidavit got changed the katha regarding the suit schedule property in her name being aware of the registered sale deed dated 14.08.1992. Defendant No.1, knowing fully well that she has no right and interest in the suit schedule property, to deprive the right of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 had executed a registered gift deed dated 30.08.2002 in favour of defendant No.2, who is none other than her daughter. Defendant No.1 had no right, title or interest to execute a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 has not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The registered gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in law or in facts. It is denied that the suit schedule property was originally owned and possessed by Bandigowda. It is denied that, he sold the suit schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs.1,32,000/- to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed on 14.08.1992. It is contended that Bandigowda was neither the absolute owner nor the purchaser of the suit schedule property, and he had no right to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 after the demise of Bandigowda, submitted an application to MUDA for executing the registered sale deed. The MUDA executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 21.08.2002. Based on the registered sale deed, defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and she gifted the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 by executing a registered gift deed dated 30.08.2002. Hence, defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves her title to the suit property?

2) Does she further prove her lawful possession over the suit property as on the date of the suit?

3) Whether the alleged interference is true?

4) Whether the su