The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of seeking a declaration of title in a property dispute when the title is disputed, and the implications of relevant legal provisions in determining the rights of co-owners and the validity of property transfers.

( 1 ) IN this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment anddecree dated 30-1-1990 passed by the xv additional city civiljudge, Bangalore in o. s. no. 2701 of 1981. By the saidjudgment, the lower court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, brief lystated, are as under: plaintiff filed a suit at o. s. no. 2701 of 1981 against thedefendants praying for a decree for permanent injunctionrestraining the defendants from dealing with the scheduleproperty in any manner including entering into sale transactionwith regard thereto or otherwise making waste or causing anyencumbrances thereon and for other reliefs referred to in theprayer column. The suit schedule property is a house bearingno. 278, hosahalli extension, Bangalore measuring east towest 37'. 6" and north to south 45' having the boundary referredto in the schedule. It is not in dispute that the said property wasallotted to the husband of defendant 1 in the year 1963 by thekarnataka housing board (for short 'khb') and a regular saledeed was executed in favour of the husband of defendant 1 on20-11-1979 by virtue of ex. D. 56. However, it is the case of theplaintiff that he, husband of defendant 1 and others referred toin plaint para 1 constituted a joint family and the joint familyhas quite a good number of properties, and the suit property,according to plaintiff, was, in fact, purchased by the husband ofdefendant 1 with the assistance of the joint family propertyincome. The husband of defendant 1 died on 12-12-1980. Afterthe death of the husband of defendant 1, plaintiff, defendant 1and others did continue as members of joint family and the jointfamily properties continued as joint family properties. However,according to plaintiff, defendants 3 and 4 who are relatives ofdefendant 1 in league with each other are trying to defraud theplaintiff by creating certain documents making it to believe thatthe suit property in question is the exclusive property ofdefendant 1. He has referred to the details in this behalf at para5 of his plaint. On these allegations, in substance, he prayed fora decree for permanent injunction in terms referred to earlier.

( 3 ) THE suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant 1 by her written statement. It was also resisted by defendants 3 and 4by a separate written statement. In substance, defendant 1 tookup the contention that plaintiff has no right, title or interest inor in respect of the suit property. It was also contended bydefendant 1 that the property in question was the exclusiveproperty of her husband. She has given the details in that behalfin the course of her written statement. She also took up acontention that a suit for mere relief of injunction is notmaintainable. She prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 3 and 4 in their written statement have asserted that plaintiff has no cause of action. In substance, they also took up a similar stand like the one taken by defendant 1. they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

( 5 ) ON the basis of these pleadings, the following issues werer aised for discussion: (1) whether the plaintiff proves that he was in lawful possession on the date of suit? (2) whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants aredealing with the suit property and entitled for permanent injunction? (3) what order?

( 6 ) BEFORE the court below, plaintiff examined himself as p. w. 1 and p. ws. 2 to 5 were examined for him. Ex. P. 1 to p. 13 were marked for him. Defendant 1 examined herself as d. w. 1. Ex. D. 1 to d. 57 were marked for her.

( 7 ) THE lower court on a consideration of the respective contentions raised by the parties took the view that a suit for bare injunction without seeking a declaration of title in respectof the property, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is notmaintainable. In that view of the matter, the lower court did notthink it necessary to probe further into the question as towhether the s