This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant.

2.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment

and decree dated 16.09.2022 passed in R.A.No.9/2019 on

the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudbande.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff

before the Trial Court is that she is the absolute owner in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property

acquired

under

registered

sale

deed

No.282/2006-07

n

18.07.2006

for

valuable

sale

consideration executed by Karnataka State Financial

- 3 -

Corporation (KSFC) in an auction by highest bidder. It is

also the contention that from the date of sale, she is in

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property

without any interruption and katha also changed in her

name by the Town Panchayat of Gudibande. Originally,

the suit schedule property was belonged to M/s. Modern

Wood Works having place of business at No.1519/31-A of

Gudibande represented by defendant No.1 and he raised

loan by mortgaging the suit schedule property on

24.06.1993

for

Rs.1.25

lakhs

in

favour

of

KSFC.

Thereafter, defendant No.1 failed to discharge the debt

and KSFC sold the suit schedule property on 31.03.2006

under public auction to the plaintiff for highest bidder for

Rs.42,000/- and executed registered sale deed in her

favour. It is contended that the defendants have created

and concocted the oral gift deed which is not permissible

in law. In turn, defendant No.1 has executed registered

gift deed No.525/2007-08 on 30.11.2007 at Sub-Registrar

of Gudibande. Since, defendant No.1 has no right, title,

interest and possession over the suit schedule property.

- 4 -

The said gift deed is null and void. On the strength of gift

deed defendant No.2 is trying to alienate the suit schedule

property in favour of others. It is also contended that

defendants are totally strangers to the suit schedule

property and they have no any manner of right, title,

interest or possession but they unnecessarily interfering

with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that after filing

of the suit, the defendants are trying to dispossess the

plaintiff hence, sought for relief of possession.

4.

In

pursuance

of

the

suit

summons,

the

defendants appeared and filed the written statement

contending that the close relative of defendant No.1 have

raised funds in the family interest and purchased the suit

schedule property in the name of plaintiff from KSFC under

auction bidder with understanding to transfer the suit

schedule

property

in

favour

of

defendant

No.1.

Accordingly, the plaintiff transferred the suit schedule

property under oral Hiba on 01.08.2006 in favour of

- 5 -

defendant No.1 in accordance with the principles of

Mohammedan Law. Defendant No.1 has accepted the said

Hiba and taken exclusive possession by confirming sad

Hiba in declaration and sworn before the notary. Hence,

defendant No.1 has become absolute owner in possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the

very claim of the plaintiff that the said document was

created and concocted cannot be accepted.

5.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial

Court framed the issues and additional issues consequent

upon the amendment of the prayer. The plaintiff

examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1

to P16. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were

examined as DW1 and DW9 and also examined other

witnesses as DW2 to DW8 and got marked the documents

at Ex.D1 to D41. The Trial Court after considering both

oral and documentary evidence placed on record dismissed

the suit of the plaintiff in coming to the conclusion that

- 6 -

there was a oral gift in favour of defendant No.1 and

rejected the claim of the plaintiff.

6.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial

Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate

Court and the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation

of both oral and do