( 1 ) THIS revision by the defendant in O. S. No. 7738 of 2002 on the file xvi Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, is directed against the order dated 3-1-2003 dismissing LA. No. III filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. The respondent herein filed the suit O. S. No. 7738 of 2002 on the file of City civil Judge, Bangalore City on 16-11-2002 seeking for the following reliefs:" (A) for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the A and B Schedule properties and/or to declare that the plaintiff has become absolute owner of A and B Schedule properties by having perfected its title by adverse possession and limitation. (b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its officials or officers or anybody claiming under it from interfering with the plaintiffs and also restraining them from demolishing the structure in the A and B Schedule properties. (c) to grant such other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the cirumstances of the case and decree the suit with costs in the interest of justice".

( 2 ) IN the said suit, summons was issued to the defendant and defendant was served with notice. Defendant appeared and filed an application-I. A. No. III under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) averring that the averment made in the plaint does not disclose cause of action for the relief of perfection of title by adverse possession and that the relief that is sought in the suit being counter destructive is not permissible in law and wherefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed objections to the said application. The Trial court after considering the contention of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and the material on record by its order dated 3-1-2003 dismissed I. A. No. III and being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has preferred this revision under Section 115 of the CPC.

( 4 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting I. A. No. III is clearly without jurisdiction. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prayer made in the suit seeking for declaration of title and to declare that the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession is inconsistent and mutually destructive of each other and is not permissible under law. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the averments made in the plaint do not make out a cause of action for perfection of title by adverse possession as there is no averment that the plaintiff has given up his title and accepted the title of the defendant and there is no specific averment as to the period from which the possession of the plaintiff or his vendor became adverse to the owner-the defendant in the suit. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the trial Court has not at all considered this aspect of the case and has proceeded on the basis that averments made in the plaint does make out a cause of action which is clearly erroneous. The learned Counsel submitted that the averments made in the plaint do not make out a cause of action for the grant of relief of perfection of title by adverse possession and wherefore, no cause of action is made out in respect of the said relief and the relief that is sought are mutually destructive. He has relied upon a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and the decision of the Orissa and Madras High Courts in support of his contention that the plea of adverse possession has to be specifically pleaded in the plaint and the period or the time from which the possession become adverse to the owner has to be specifically pleaded and the person claiming adverse possession has to disclaim his title and accept the title of the opponent. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no pleading of ingredients of adverse possession as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts in the d