A confirmed auction sale grants absolute title to the purchaser, invalidating subsequent conflicting ownership claims.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2012 passed in RA No.8/2010 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sagar ('First Appellate Court' for short), and the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2009 passed in OS No.26/2009 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sagar ('Trial Court' for short).

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.

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

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property EBGF which is part and parcel of the property shown as ABCD in the rough sketch and also sought for permanent injunction. The plaintiff's husband namely Sri. K.M.Lingappa was a spendthrift. He was also an active Politician. He stood as a guarantor to one Sri. K.L.Chowdappa. The borrower and guarantor could not repay the loan obtained by the borrower i.e., K.L.Chowdappa. A suit came to be filed against the husband of plaintiff, K.M.Lingappa, and K.L.Chowdappa in OS No.40/1974. The said suit was decreed. An execution petition was filed in Ex.No.170/1982, in which the entire ABCD property was attached and sold in the auction proceedings. Sri. N.Sridhara Kumar was the auction purchaser. He was the highest bidder. The auction bid was confirmed in favour of N.Sridhara Kumar. The plaintiff was the sole daughter of Late Venkatappa of Gadag, approached Sridhara and requested to convey the suit schedule property in her favour.

Plaintiff's father had given to the plaintiff, his wife's gold and silver articles and also his savings during 1984. The plaintiff was able to mobilize the sum of Rs.6,000/- and purchased the property ABCD from N.Sridhara Kumar under a registered sale date dated 28.06.1984. Based on the said registered sale deed, khata was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. During the last week of February 2000, the defendant came near the sheep shed and attempted to break open the door fixed. The plaintiff resisted. On verification, the plaintiff learnt that, the defendant filed a suit in OS No.105/1998 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sagar against K.M.Lingappa and obtained an injunction in respect of the property identified as EBGF i.e., suit schedule property and she made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff by illegal means. The plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for injunction against the defendant in OS No.63/2000. However, the said suit was withdrawn and the plaintiff filed the present suit on the file of the Trial Court for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that, the defendant had purchased the property from K.M.Lingappa under a registered sale deed dated 10.09.1986, and she became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the said sale deed and the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contented that, the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and the auction purchaser had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. The cause of action shown in the suit are false and imaginary. Hence, prays to dismiss the sui