In these two appeals, the appellant is common. He figured as seventh defendant in OS No. 11064 of 1996 and the first defendant in OS No. 15580 of 2001, on the file of City Civil Judge at Bangalore. The common respondent No.1 in these appeals namely, M/s. Abhaya Land and Finance Private Limited, registered office at No. 113, Embassy Centre, No.11, Crescent Road, Bangalore – 560 078 and address changed to ‘Vishnu’, 16th Road, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore – 560 070, was the common plaintiff in the two suits.

2. The first suit OS No. 11064 of 1996 was for the relief of declaration of title and for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of six flats in a multistoried residential complex by name ‘Ramya Residency’ comprised of seventy apartments [flats bearing Nos. 011, 012, 014, 301, 401 and 414 [old Nos. 111, 112, 114, 401, 501 and 514 respectively] constructed on Survey Nos. 139 and 149 (combined) and the piece and parcel of land bearing No. 648-O and 648-N, Binnamangala 1st Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore. This suit came to be decreed in part, where under the plaintiff was declared as absolute owner of the six flats. However as the plaintiff was found not in possession of flat No.011 (Old No.111) and since defendant No.7 was in possession of said flat, the relief of permanent injunction was granted only against defendants 1 to 6 & 8 in respect of flats 012, 014, 301, 401 & 414, but it was refused against defendant No.7 in relation to flat No.011.

3. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the second suit for recovery of possession of flat No.011, by impleading the seventh defendant in the first suit as first defendant, the tenants in occupation of said flat as defendants 2, 3 and 4 and Ramya Residency Owners’ Society, represented by its President or Other Principal Office Bearer as fifth defendant. In the second suit the plaintiff also sought for the damages of Rs.1,80,000/- at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of three years prior to the date of filing of suit and further for an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the CPC’] to ascertain the actual rent/compensation collected by the first defendant and to decree such amount as mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff for the period subsequent to filing of the suit. The second suit came to be decreed both for recovery of possession and for past damages while an enquiry has been ordered under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to claim towards current and future mesne profits.

4. As earlier indicated the common appellant is before this court to get over the Judgment and the declaratory decree in the earlier suit, insofar as the declaration is concerned and in the later suit for yielding possession and for payment of past damages, present and future mesne profits, to get over the judgment and decree for possession etc.

5. While the earlier appeal is sought to be allowed by urging the legal ground that the decree for declaration alone in respect of flat No. 011 as against the seventh defendant was not tenable in the light of the embargo to be found in the proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [for short ‘the Act’], the later appeal is sought to be allowed by urging that the suit was hit by the embargo placed on such a suit under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. Such main legal contentions are canvassed on behalf of the appellant by Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals along with few other supplemental submissions.

6. Submissions urged on behalf of the appellant in the two appeals, is countered by Sri A G Sirsi, learned counsel for common plaintiff in the two suits and arrayed as first respondent in both the appeals to which we shall advert in detail hereinafter.

7. We have heard Sri Prasanna Kumar and Sri A G Sirsi at length. We have also perused the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record, read the Judgments under appeal, loo