1. This appeal is by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 24.03.2009, passed by the I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.3352/1986.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal.

4. The respondents are defendants 1 to 6 in the Trial Court. The parties will be referred with reference to their rank in the original suit O.S.No.3352/1986.

5. Briefly stated the facts are:

The appellant/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.3352/1986 for mandatory injunction, specific performance and declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendants1 and 2 in favour of the sixth defendant is not binding on the plaintiff. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that the defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of Sy.No.57/2 of Agrahara Dasarahalli village. The defendant No.3 is the Power of Attorney Holder of defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 1 and 2 formed several sites in Sy.No.57/2 and entered into sale agreement with the plaintiff on 28.12.1974 agreeing to sell and reconvey site No.28 formed in Sy.No.57/2 measuring 40' x 60' for a sum of Rs.8,000/-. The defendants 1 and 2 received a sum of Rs.1,000/-on the date of agreement and agreed to receive further sum of Rs.7,000/-at the time of registration. The defendants 1 and 2 got the suit schedule site and other sites through registered partition deed dated 17.07.1969. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 formed 29 sites and applied for reconveyance. The re-conveyance was ordered in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 as per endorsement dated 24.03.1975. This was followed by another endorsement dated 20.12.1977. Reconveyance in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was ordered subject to the condition that the defendants 1 and 2 shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,73,000/- towards the layout charges. The defendants 1 and 2 informed the fifth defendant that they have either sold or entered into sale agreement with several persons and reconveyance may be ordered in favour of the purchasers including the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 furnished the names of the purchasers including the plaintiff. The defendant No.5 issued endorsement dated 27.2.1979 asking the plaintiff to pay layout charges of Rs.5,965.18. The plaintiff paid the layout charges. Thereafter, the defendant No.3, the power of attorney holder of defendants 1 and 2 has given affidavit to the fifth defendant on 24.11.1982 stating that the defendants 1 and 2 have received the entire cost of the site from the plaintiff and requested the fifth defendant to issue possession certificate to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 obtained permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority to sell the property on 16.11.1984. It is stated, during 1979 itself, remaining amount of Rs.7,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants 1 and 2. It was intimated to the fifth defendant. The plaintiff was asked to pay Rs.3,517/-towards reconveyance charges and produce no objection certificate from the defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff produced no objection certificate from the previous owners to issue possession certificate. But, the fifth defendant insisted for the sale deed from the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 have agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.4. Again, during the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1 and 2 have sold the property in favour of the defendant No.6. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for mandatory injunction, specific performance and declaration.

6. The defendant No.3, who is the Power of Attorney holder of defendants 1 and 2 has filed his written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. Sy.No.57/2 was acquired by the CITB vide preliminary notification dated 08.1.1964 published in the Gazette dated 06.02.1964 and final notification dated 11.12.1971 published in the