JUDGMENT

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant No.4 who is the purchaser from the original owner Ramaiah vide Ex.D1 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has independently assessed oral and documentary evidence. The appellate Court, on reappreciation of evidence on record, found that though Ramaiah had gifted the suit land to one Nagamma under a registered gift deed dated 26.11.1964 and the same was immediately stood transferred to Nagamma, in the year 1965, Ramaiah had no saleable title or authority to execute the sale deed in favour of the father of defendants-1 and 2 by name and defendant No.4. Therefore, the appellate Court was also of the view that sale deed dated 07.05.1965 vide Ex.D1 will not convey any title to the defendants. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the appellants are have filed this appeal.

6. Learned Senior Counsel re