- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 902 OF 2025 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: SRI. SHANMUGAM T S/O SRI. THANGAVELU GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4, 13TH A CROSS, 4TH MAIN, SAMPANGI RAMANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. G. DEVANATH S/O LATE SRI GOVINDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO. 19/1, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 030. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GAJENDRA S, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.26714/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 UNIT, CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU, (CCH-75), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND INJUNCTION. 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 sole defendant assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.26714/2018. 2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 16.03.1998 executed by the erstwhile owner, Smt. Sarojamma. The plaintiff further sought a consequential declaration that the documents set up by the defendant, namely the General - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 Power of Attorney, agreement of sale and Will dated 23.11.1994, are null, void and not binding on the plaintiff. 4. Upon service of summons, the sole defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement vehemently denying the plaint averments. The defendant specifically disputed the plaintiff’s title and alleged that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is a fabricated and concocted document purportedly obtained from Sarojamma. Setting up a rival claim, the defendant asserted absolute ownership over the suit schedule property on the strength of a General Power of Attorney, agreement of sale and Will allegedly executed by Sarojamma on 23.11.1994. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues for consideration and relegated the parties to trial. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses in support of his claim and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 produced thirteen documents, including the registered sale deed dated 09.06.1997, which was marked as Ex.P1. 6. The defendant entered the witness box and tendered his chief-examination. However, despite disputing the plaintiff’s title and setting up a competing claim, the defendant failed to produce cogent rebuttal evidence to substantiate his alleged right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. 7. The Trial Court, upon a meticulous appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiff has successfully established his lawful title to the suit schedule property and that the defendant is in unauthorised possession thereof. While answering the additional Issue No.1 in the affirmative, the Trial Court further held that the General Power of Attorney, agreement of sale and Will dated 23.11.1994 relied upon by the defendant are null and void and not binding on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was decreed declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. This Court has also independently re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. In the light of the rival submissions, the following points arise for consideration: i. Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that the defendant is in unauthorised possession thereof is perverse and calls for interference by this Court? ii. What order? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 9. Since the plaintiff instituted a comprehensive suit seeking declaration of title and consequential reliefs, the initial burden squarely lay upon the plaintiff to establish his lawful title to the suit schedule property. In discharge of the said burden, the plaintiff stepped into the witness box and produced the registered sale deed dated 09.06.1997 executed by the erstwhile owner, Smt. Sarojamma, which is marked as Ex.P1. The execution of Ex.P1 and the manner in which the plaintiff traces title thereunder are not seriously shaken in the cross- examination. 10. The defendant admittedly traces his alleged right and title through the very same vendor, namely Smt. Sarojamma. However, the defendant sets up a rival claim asserting absolute ownership on the strength of a General Power of Attorney, an agreement of sale and a Will allegedly executed by Sarojamma on 23.11.1994. Once the plaintiff produced a validly executed registered sale deed and proved acquisition of title thereunder, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 plaintiff must be held to have discharged the burden cast upon him. Consequently, the onus shifted to the defendant to substantiate his competing claim by producing cogent documentary and oral evidence in support of the alleged GPA, agreement of sale and Will. 11. Except making bald assertions in the written statement, the defendant has neither produced the alleged documents nor subjected himself to cross-examination. Having tendered chief-examination, the defendant chose not to offer himself for cross-examination and also failed to produce any rebuttal evidence. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in drawing an adverse inference against the defendant under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that had the evidence been produced, the same would have gone against the defendant. 12. Moreover, even assuming that the defendant was armed with a General Power of Attorney and an agreement - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 of sale dated 23.11.1994, such documents by themselves do not convey title in immovable property. Unless the defendant had acted upon the GPA and agreement of sale and obtained a registered sale deed in his favour, no right, title or interest could have vested in him. Therefore, the defendant could not have asserted ownership merely on the basis of an unacted-upon agreement of sale or GPA. 13. Equally, insofar as the Will is concerned, the burden squarely lay upon the defendant to prove the Will in a manner known to law. The propounder of a Will is required to prove due execution and attestation in accordance with law, which has not even been attempted in the present case. The records further reveal that the defendant had earlier instituted a bare suit for injunction in O.S.No.4743/2010, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Even at that stage, the defendant did not seek to enforce the agreement of sale nor did he seek declaration of title based on the alleged Will. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 14. If the defendant was genuinely asserting title under an agreement of sale, he ought to have sought specific performance within the period of limitation. If the claim was founded on a Will, the same ought to have been proved by leading appropriate evidence. The fact that the defendant simultaneously sets up an agreement of sale, a GPA and a Will, all allegedly executed on the same date, itself militates against his claim and indicates that the testator/vendor retained ownership till execution of a valid conveyance. In the absence of proof of the Will or enforcement of the agreement of sale, the defendant had no locus to resist the plaintiff’s claim for declaration of title. 15. Be that as it may, having entered the witness box and tendered chief-examination, the defendant consciously abstained from leading rebuttal evidence and from subjecting himself to cross-examination. In the absence of any challenge to the registered sale deed dated 16.03.1998 obtained by the plaintiff, the title acquired by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 the plaintiff stands protected under Sections 5, 8 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Such title operates not only against the original owner, Smt. Sarojamma, but also against the defendant, who claims through her. 16. Unless the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is independently challenged and set aside in a manner known to law, the defendant cannot be permitted to unsettle the plaintiff’s lawful title. It is well settled that a Will, though capable of conferring title upon a legatee, operates only upon the estate remaining with the testator at the time of her death. A testamentary disposition cannot override or nullify a completed inter vivos transfer effected by the testator during her lifetime. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the defendant succeeds in establishing the due execution and attestation of the Will allegedly executed by Smt. Sarojamma on 23.11.1994, such a Will would not confer any right, title or interest upon the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property, once it is demonstrated that Sarojamma had - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 already divested herself of ownership by executing a valid registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 16.03.1998. The sale deed, having been executed by the absolute owner for valid consideration and registered in accordance with law, binds the vendor and operates to convey complete title to the purchaser. Consequently, the defendant, even as a legatee under the alleged Will, cannot acquire any superior or independent title than that of the testator, nor can he question a lawful alienation made by the testator during her lifetime without first having the same set aside. In the absence of any challenge to the plaintiff’s sale deed, enforcement of the agreement of sale, or declaration in respect of the alleged Will, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.1 are based on correct appreciation of law and evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the negative. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5539 RFA No. 902 of 2025 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER The appeal is devoid of merits, and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14