IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1776 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI LINGESH S/O S N YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

2. SUSHEELA W/O S N LINSGESH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 60 FT ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M NEAR SHARAVATHI ENGLISH MEDIUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SCHOOL BACKSIDE, SANTHOSHA NIVASA, VINOBHA NAGAR EXSTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI P K RAMESHA S/O LATE PYATI KALAPPACHAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

2. BHARATHI W/O P K RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BOTH ARE TEACHERS AND RESIDING AT NANDI NILAYA, NEAR SUDHEER FITNESS CENTRE, 2^ND CROSS, HANUMANTHA NAGAR, BHADRAVATHI - 577 245.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.87/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA . DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.05.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.202/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SHIVAMOGGA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants calling in question the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2019 passed in R.A.No.87/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga (for short 'the First Appellate Court') and the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2018 in O.S.202/2008 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga (for short 'the trial Court').

Brief facts

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit in O.S.No.202/2008 for declaration and permanent injunction, contending that plaintiff No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 29.08.2003. It is the case of the plaintiff that despite execution of sale deed, defendant No.1 subsequently executed a gift deed dated 05.09.2007 in favour of defendant No.2, who is none other than his wife, without any subsisting right, title or interest.

3. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by the trial Court, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement, denying the execution of the sale deed and contended that the property belong to defendant No.1, who validly gifted the same to defendant No.2. It is contended that the full sale consideration was not paid and therefore, the sale deed is not valid.

4. The trial Court based on the pleadings, framed necessary issues. In order to substantiate their claim, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, one witness as PW.2 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The defendant on the other hand got himself examined as DW.1 and marked documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D20.

5. The trial Court based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the plaintiff has proved that he is the owner of the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 29.08.2003. Further, that defendant No.1 had no right to execute the subsequent gift deed dated 05.09.2007. The Gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 is void and collusive. Accordingly, the suit was decreed, granting declaration and injunction.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred appeal in R.A.No.87/2018 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court being the last fact finding Court re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and arrived at a conclusion that upon execution and registration of a sale deed, title stands transferred absolutely to the purchaser. The vendor loses all rights and cannot subsequently divest title by executing the gift deed. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff having not been challenged, defendant No.1 had no subsisting right to execute the gift deed. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and decree of t