ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2020 passed in R.A.No.136/2020 by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and the Judgment and Decree dated 27.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.1268/2007 by the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. Appellants were the Plaintiffs, and the Respondents were the Defendants. 3. Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that land bearing Sy.No.81/15, measuring East to West 120 feet, North to South 120 feet, situated at Shivakote Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs.

4. Defendant No.3 is the uncle and defendant No.4 is the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are the members of the Hindu Undivided Joint Family and they are in possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.2, on 26.07.1996 in respect of the suit schedule property.

5. After coming to the notice of the said fact, the plaintiffs have applied for a certified copy of a registered gift deed. After obtaining the same, the plaintiffs came to know that defendant Nos.3 and 4 had executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.2. It is contended that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have no right to execute a gift deed in favour of defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 has not acquired any right over the suit property and the gift deed executed by defendant Nos.3 and 4 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

6. The defendants on receipt of the suit summons, defendant Nos.3 and 4 appeared. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained unrepresented and they were place exparte. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 did not file any written statement. The trial court has taken the written statement of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 as not filed and posted the case for recording evidence.

7. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.1 was examined as PW-1 and marked the documents as Exhibits-P1 to P8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit with cost vide judgment dated 27.06.2017. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.1268/2007 preferred an appeal in RA No.136 of 2020 on the file of the learned 9th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District. The appellate Court, on reassessment of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23.12.2020 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the impugned judgments filed this regular second appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submit that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have no right to execute a registered gift deed in respect of the suit schedule property, in favour of defendant No.2. He submitted that the defendant No.2 has not acquired any title by virtue of a registered gift deed. Hence, he submits that the trial court committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court without properly reappreciating the evidence on record, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow this appeal.

9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, the plaintiff No.1 was examined himself as PW-1, and he reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove their case, plaintiffs have produced the d