JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents.

3. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The appellants filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bangalore claiming a declaration of title in favour of the first appellant in respect of the suit property. The second prayer was for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the first appellant. In the alternative, a prayer was made that in the event the Court comes to the conclusion that the first appellant was not in possession of the suit property, a decree for possession be passed against the second respondent.

4. On an application made by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Trial Court rejected the plaint by exercising power under Rule 11 (a) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action.

5. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel counsel appearing for the second and third respondents, we find that the entire app