The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal against orders upholding a Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff. The court held that the deed was voluntary and free from coercion, finding no perversity in the lower courts' decree.
No relief granted; the appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:31255 RSA No. 1023 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1023 OF 2024 (DEC/POS)
BETWEEN:
SHRI K.S. SHIVAPRAKASH, S/O. LATE K.M. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.1594, OLD BAZAAR STREET, (NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE) HULLAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 570 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
SHRI K.S. VEERABHADRAPRASAD, S/O. LATE K.M. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HEGGADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 570 001.
…RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.04.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.74/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.316/2012 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANAGUDU.
NC: 2024:KHC:31255 RSA No. 1023 of 2024
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the defendant,
challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 03.04.2024 in R.A. No.74/2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC, Nanjanagudu, dismissing the appeal, consequently confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 03.11.2023 in O.S.No.316/2012 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Nanjanagudu, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
the plaintiff that his father-late K.M. Shivanna had purchased the schedule property as per registered Sale
Deed dated 06.03.1998 and thereafter, executed the registered Gift Deed dated 29.12.2010 in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed a suit to declare that, he is the absolute owner of suit property and also to direct the defendant to vacate and handover the possession of suit schedule property to him in O.S.No.316/2012.
defendant that, plaintiff has forcibly got registered Gift Deed in his favour and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit.
same were marked as Ex.P-1 to P-8. The defendant got examined himself as DW-1 and two more witnesses were examined as DW-2 and DW-3 and produced twelve documents and same were marked as Ex.D-1 to D-12. The trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 03.11.2023 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and as such, the defendant was directed to vacate the suit schedule property within three months from the date of judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:31255 RSA No. 1023 of 2024
recorded by both the Courts below. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant are brothers and their father-late K.M. Shivanna has purchased the schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 06.03.1998. The defendant has admitted in the written statement that the suit schedule property is the selfacquired property of his father-Late K.M. Shivanna. In that view of the matter, though the defendant has urged that the father of the defendant has executed the Will dated 22.09.2003 (Ex.D-2) however, the finding recorded
by the trial Court with regard to issue No.3 and the additional issue framed on 18.11.2015 would indicate that, the defendant has urged that the registered Gift Deed was executed under suspicious circumstances, where the father of the plaintiff was forced to execute the said documents. However, the plaintiff had examined the attesting witnesses to the Gift Deed dated 29.12.2010 namely PW-2, and the deposition of the PW-2 makes it clear that there was no coercion or undue influence on the part of the father of the plaintiff, who had executed the
Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff. The finding recorded
by the trial Court would indicate that the defendant has taken a plea that the property was purchased from the joint family earnings. However, the said aspect has been rightly negated by the trial Court as the defendant himself has stated in the written statement that the father of the defendant had purchased the property through his own earnings and therefore, the same has to be considered as the self-acquired property of the father of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, as the plaintiff has examined the
attesters to the Gift Deed and it was proved that, the registered Gift Deed was executed by the father of the plaintiff voluntarily, as it is forthcoming from the deposition of DW-2 and DW-3, I am of the view that, both the Courts below have rightly held that the Gift Deed dated 29.12.2010 said to have been executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff is without
any undue influence or coercion as contended by the appellant herein. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below have appreciated the entire material on
NC: 2024:KHC:31255 RSA No. 1023 of 2024
record and have rightly come to the conclusion in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, there is no material illegality or perversity in the Judgment and Decree passed by both the Courts below. There is no substantial question of law required to be framed in this appeal, as the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission itself.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal I.A. No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the lower courts' finding that a registered Gift Deed executed by the father was voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence.
Whether the lower courts' decree in favour of the plaintiff deprived the defendant of his inheritance rights.
Whether the appeal is devoid of merits and requires discharge at the stage of admission.
K.S. Shivapraakash
K.S. Veerabhadraprasad
E.S.Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
