1. This is a defendant's appeal. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

2. It was the plaintiff's case that she was the absolute owner of a residential site bearing no. 20 at Mathikere, Bangalore, measuring about 30 feet - East to west and 45 feet - north to south, with the following boundaries : East by : Property no. 19 West by : Property of Munihanumaiah North by : Road South by : Property no. 16 The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property from Smt. Leela Bai, under a registered sale deed dated 31.1.1973. The plaintiff further claimed that her sister had purchased the adjoining site to the east of her property under a sale deed dated 20-11-1972 also from the plaintiff's vendor, Leela Bai. It is the plaintiff's further case that Leela Bai , her vendor, had purchased the two sites in the year 1959 , from Shivappa yane Narayan Rao and K. Adappa. She had produced the encumberance certificates in respect of the suit property from the year 1958 to 1987. It was stated that towards the south of the suit property there is site no.16 , attention is drawn to the sale deed pertaining to the said property indicating the plaintiff's property as the northern boundary of that property. She has similarly drawn attention to the boundaries of site no. 17 and 18, purchased by one Mukundraj in the year 1959 from Shivappa yane narayan Rao and Adappa, indicating Leela bai, the plaintiff's vendor, as the owner of the property on the western boundary, site no.19. The complaint of the plaintiff was that the suit property was a vacant site as on the date of suit. The defendant, it is said, had suddenly brought men and material on the property on 8-1-1988 and had commenced earth work, apparently to lay foundation for construction. The plaintiff was therefore constrained to file a civil suit for injunction in case no. OS 493/1988, on the file of the City Civil Court , Bangalore. Though there was an order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, it is the plaintiff's grievance that the defendant had relentlessly carried on the construction even during the pendency of the suit , with the active connivance of the local police and had completed the construction. Her application for disobedience of the injunction order was not considered. As that suit for the relief of bare injunction was no longer efficacious, she had filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, seeking declaration of title, possession and mandatory injunction.

3. The defendant had contested the suit. The defendant had, in turn, claimed that he was the owner of site no.20 which he had purchased under a sale deed dated 8.2.1977. He had no claim over the plaintiff's site bearing no.17. The defendant claimed to have constructed a small dwelling unit on the back portion of the site, in the year 1979 and had been living there since then. He had thereafter obtained sanction of plan for a building on the front portion of the site, in the year 1987 and had put up further construction. The erstwhile Bangalore City Corporation had issued Khata and has been collecting taxes in respect of the said property. According to the defendant the claim of the plaintiff is in respect of a site, two sites away from his property to the east. It is only in the year 1988 that the defendant has sought to make a claim in respect of the defendant's property. That the suit was barred by limitation.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings the trial court had framed the following issues : "1. Whether plaintiff proves her title to the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has constructed the building in the suit schedule site violating the injunction order passed in 493/1988?

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view or the previous suit viz. O.S.493/1988 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant?

4. Whether the suit is barred by time?

5. Wheth