- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14729 RSA No. 1776 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH 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, 2ND STAGE, NEAR SHARAVATHI ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL BACKSIDE, SANTHOSHA NIVASA, VINOBHA NAGAR EXSTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14729 RSA No. 1776 of 2021 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, 2ND 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: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14729 RSA No. 1776 of 2021 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14729 RSA No. 1776 of 2021 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14729 RSA No. 1776 of 2021 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 the trial Court was confirmed. Aggrieved by which, the appellants/defendants are before this Court in this regular second appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14729 RSA No. 1776 of 2021 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the Courts below have totally overlooked the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellants and that there arises a substantial question of law to be considered in this appeal, despite there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. 8. This Court has carefully considered the submission and perused the materials on record including the judgment and decree rendered by the Courts below. 9. Undisputedly, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 29.08.2003. Though the defendants denied execution in the written statement and stated that defendant No.1 had executed a gift deed in favour of defendant No.2, by way of amendment, defendant No.1 sought to contend that the market value of the suit schedule property is Rs.1,69,000/- and the plaintiffs prepared document for Rs.1,35,000/- and still a balance of Rs.50,000/- was due. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14729 RSA No. 1776 of 2021 The contention regarding non-payment of full consideration is unsupported and contradictory as rightly considered by the Courts below. The sale deed has not been challenged in accordance with law and continues to remain and binding. Once the title is transferred by a registered sale deed, the vendor is divested of all rights over the property. Consequently, the subsequent gift deed dated 05.09.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is without authority and legally unsustainable. The Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion that the gift deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1 is a collusive document and defendant No.1 had no right to execute any gift deed in favour of defendant No.2, in light of the sale deed already been executed in favour of defendant No.1 under a registered document dated 29.08.2003. 10. The law is well settled that the registered document has a presumptive value. The sale deed has been executed in the year 2003. If the contention of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14729 RSA No. 1776 of 2021 defendants is that the sale deed was not executed in a manner known to law, the same could have been challenged by the defendants in accordance with law. Having not challenged and the sale deed being in force till date, defendant No.1 had no right, title to execute a gift deed in favour of defendant No.2. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and applied settled principles of law. There is no perversity or illegality and there arises no substantial questions of law to be considered by this Court under Section 100 CPC. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The regular second appeal is hereby dismissed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 29.05.2018 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga in O.S.No.202/2008 and the judgment and decree dated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14729 RSA No. 1776 of 2021 20.11.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga in R.A.No.87/2018 are hereby confirmed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15