- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10760-DB RFA No. 1505 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2017 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. A. LILLY MARY W/O A MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560049 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M L GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PRASHANTH K. KURIAS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O M. J. KURIOKOSE KURIAS, RESIDING AT NO.14/18 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, MICHAEL PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560075 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.5327/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION. Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10760-DB RFA No. 1505 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present Regular First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2017 passed in Original Suit No.5327 of 2012 which was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration and possession. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court for decision: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves her title and possessary right over suit property through Gift Deed dated 16.07.2008 and sale deeds in favour of her husband dated 11.08.2006 and his vendor dated 11.05.1961? - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10760-DB RFA No. 1505 of 2017 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant took possession of the suit property illegally during the month of June-2012? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of declaration of title? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for taking possession of the property? 5. To what order or relief the plaintiff is entitled to?" 4. In support of her case, the plaintiff examined her power of attorney holder as PW.1 and adduced documentary evidence in Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and Ex.P12 to Ex.P28, whereas the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and got marked the documentary evidence in Ex.D1 to Ex.D15. 5. The only question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether Mr. Balaswamy had any right, title and interest in the suit schedule property to convey it to the husband of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 11.08.2006 inasmuch as the plaintiff claims right over the suit schedule property on the basis of a gift deed executed by her husband on 16.07.2008 in respect of the said property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10760-DB RFA No. 1505 of 2017 6. The Trial Court, while considering the evidence, has taken note of the fact that by virtue of the sale deed dated 11.05.1961, Rathnappa had conveyed the suit schedule property in favour of Balaswamy. However, Balaswamy had re-conveyed the suit schedule property in favour of Rathnappa vide registered sale deed dated 26.04.1962. In the proceedings before the Tahsildar, who passed the order in Ex.P27, J. Rathnappa admitted the claim of Balaswamy and entered into settlement with him on 19.03.1980 and stated that he had no objection to effect khata in the name of Balaswamy. The sale deed was executed on 11.05.1961, however, the khata was effected in the name of Balaswamy in the year 1987-1988. The alleged settlement deed entered into between Balaswamy and J.Rathnappa was marked as Ex.P28. Admittedly, the said settlement deed was an unregistered document and it recites the filing of the suit by J. Rathnappa based on the re-conveyance deed dated 26.04.1962 and dismissal of it. But no case number was mentioned nor the name of the Court which disposed of the suit was mentioned. The said settlement deed also recites that J. Rathnappa moved the High Court by filing an appeal, however, the appeal number - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10760-DB RFA No. 1505 of 2017 was not mentioned. Ex.P28 was written on stamp paper of Rs.100/-,however, it was not registered. 7. The Trial Court, in this background, has held that if the property was reconveyed by Balaswamy in favour of J.Rathnappa by the registered deed dated 26.04.1962 (Ex.D3) and this document was not disputed, the property, on the basis of the unregistered settlement deeds dated 19.03.1980, would not get reconveyed in favour of Balaswamy. 8. It is thus evident that Balaswamy did not have any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property on 11.08.2006 and the legal heirs of Balaswamy could not have conveyed the property in favour of the husband of the plaintiff. Once the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff did not have right, title and interest over the property, the subject matter of the registered sale deed between the legal heirs of Balaswamy and the husband of the plaintiff and subsequent gift deed would not create any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. We are therefore, of the view that as the legal heirs of Balaswamy had no right, title and interest over the property, which was allegedly conveyed to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10760-DB RFA No. 1505 of 2017 husband of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 11.08.2006, the plaintiff would not be entitled to claim interest over the suit schedule property. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, however, without costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6