IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 405 OF 2012 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. R DURGA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O P RANGANATH

2. SRI P RANGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O K V PARSURAM BOTH ARE R/AT NO.36

9TH 'B' MAIN ROAD

2ND BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMI PURAM BANGALORE 560 086.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO., ADVOCATE)

Dig itally signed by NAGARAJA AND:

B M Location:

HIGH COUR T

1. SRI N L MAHESH RAO OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMAN RAO

2. SRI N L NAGENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMAN RAO DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NALLA HALLI VILLAGE KANAKAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 098.

3. SRI K N SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE SRI NANJUNDAPPA RESIDING AT NO.13 NEAR KURUBARAHALLI CIRCLE BASAVESHWARANAGAR POST BANGALORE 560 086.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K SREEDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;

R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4551/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DECLARATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4551/2006, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction and cancellation of registered sale dated 24.02.2003 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed.

Plaintiffs are in appeal.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

Plaintiffs are wife and husband. The suit schedule property admittedly belonged to defendant No.3. As per the admitted facts, defendant No.3 and his son executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of plaintiff No.2 and simultaneously executed an agreement of sale on the very same day and an affidavit acknowledging receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.2,17,391/- and delivery of possession. Plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that entire sale consideration was paid on 04.03.1992 and that plaintiff No.2 was put in possession in part performance. Subsequently, plaintiff No.2 acting as GPA holder of defendant No.3 executed a registered sale deed dated 20.08.2004 in favour of plaintiff No.1. Present suit is instituted alleging that defendants illegally trespassed on the suit site and attempted to put up construction on

26.05.2006. Hence, plaintiffs instituted a suit and later having noticed the alienation made by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiffs by way of amendment sought cancellation of the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2.

4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and also filed additional written statement and stoutly denied the entire claim of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 specifically claimed that the sale deed obtained by plaintiff No.1 from her husband/plaintiff No.2 is a sham document as no sale consideration is reflected and therefore, no saleable title and right is conveyed. Defendant No.1 has seriously disputed the genuineness of the sale deed obtained by plaintiff No.1 and it is alleged that it is a concocted document. Defendant No.1 has asserted that defendant No.3 as absolute owner has executed registered sale deed on 24.02.2003 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, the subsequent sale deed executed by plaintiff No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.1 does not convey title and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on rival claims, the trial Court formulated appropriate issues. Plaintiff No.2 examined himself as PW.1 and also examined defendant No.3 as PW.