As per case facts, Bhika Gouda and Khali Gouda, brothers in a joint family, acquired properties. After Bhika's death, his widow Jasoda executed two gift deeds for the properties, one ... to Golapi (Plaintiff) and another to Sakuntala. Sakuntala later sold her share to Golapi, who claimed ownership. Bhagirathi (Defendant No.1), husband of Bhika's daughter Radhika, dispossessed Golapi after winning a previous suit over a property. Golapi then sued for declaration of title and to void the earlier judgment. Defendant No.1 challenged the gift deeds, alleging Jasoda was too old, unsound, and visually impaired to execute them. The question arose whether the first appellate court could validate gift deeds that the trial court found invalid without the plaintiff filing an appeal, and if its finding of validity was legally sound considering the donor's vulnerable state. Finally, the High Court ruled that while the appellate court could re-examine issues, its validation of the gift deeds was incorrect. It concurred with the trial court that the propounder failed to prove valid execution by the old, ailing, illiterate, and Pardanashin donor. The High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment, emphasizing the heavy burden on the propounder to establish valid execution under such circumstances.