The present second appeal by the plaintiffs assailing

the concurrent findings of the courts below, wherein, the

suit of the plaintiffs for declaration seeking cancellation of

sale deed dated 04.02.2008 executed by deceased

Shrishailayya S/o Neelkanthayya Math, the husband of the

plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 came to be

dismissed by the courts below.

The parties are referred to as per their rank

before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs

filed suit for declaration seeking cancellation of sale deed

dated 04.02.2008 executed by deceased Shrishailayya,

the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff

Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the suit land bearing Sy.No.26/1

measuring 05 acres 20 guntas in favour of defendant No.1

and restraining defendant No.2 from mutating the name of

defendant No.1 in the revenue records. It is the case of

the plaintiffs that sale deed executed by deceased

- 4 -

Shrishailayya in favour of defendant No.1 was by obtaining

fraud and the signature of the deceased Shrishailayya was

taken in a drunken state of mind and the said sale deed

has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

4.

The defendant No.1 resisted the claim of the

plaintiffs, inter alia, contending that the suit schedule

property is the exclusive property of Shrishailayya and

further contended that the sale deed dated 04.02.2008 in

respect of the suit schedule property to the extent of 02

acres 23 guntas was by receiving valuable consideration

by deceased Shrishailayya and the possession of the suit

land was handed over to defendant No.1 to the said

extent. It is the contention of the defendant that plaintiffs

had filed suit in OS No.51/2008 against the defendant and

deceased Shrishailayya was also a party in the said suit,

which suit came to be withdrawn and would contend that

the present suit seeking to set aside the sale deed is not

maintainable.

- 5 -

5.

The trial court on the basis of the pleadings,

framed the following issues:

"1.

Whether

the

plaintiffs

prove

that,

the

defendant No.1 during the life time of

deceased Shrishailayya without giving any

sale amount when he was in drunken state

taken his LTM on sale deed in Sub-Registrar

Office,

B.Bagewadi

on

04.02.2008

by

executing a bogus sale deed?

Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he

was purchased the suit property by giving a

valuable

consideration

amount

of

Rs.1,63,000/- to the deceased Shrishailayya,

he has executed a Sale dee?

Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in

possession of the suit property?

4.

Whether the plaintiffs proves that the sale

deed dated 04.02.2008 is a fake sale deed?

5.

Whether the plaintiffs have made out the

case as prayed by them?

6.

In order to substantiate the claim of the

plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as P.W. and got

examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked

documents at Exs.P.1 to 9. On the other hand, defendant

- 6 -

No.1 is examined as D.W.1 and examined one witness as

D.W.2 and got marked documents at Exs.D.1 to 5.

7.

The trial court on the basis of the pleadings,

oral and documentary evidence placed before it, held that

the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant No.1

has played fraud and got the sale deed executed before

the Sub-Registrar by the deceased Shrishailayya and

defendant No.1 has proved that he is the bona fide

purchaser of the suit property and accordingly by the

judgment and decree, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

8.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred

appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate

court on re-appreciation and re-analyzing the entire oral

and documentary evidence placed before it dismissed the

appeal. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal by the

plaintiffs.

9.

Heard Sri T.H. Avin for Smt. Shanawaz M.

Mamadapur, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs

- 7 -

and Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent - defend