B.S. PATIL, J.-This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the 1st defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2005 passed by the learned XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 16565/2001. The Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein granting permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the enjoyment of the undivided open space around "Dennison Apartments" and in the enjoyment of the usufructs of the trees standing therein.

2. Plaintiff has purchased an apartment bearing No. 303 forming part of Dennison Apartments, No. 12, Hall Road, Richard Town, Bangalore-560 005. The dispute in this case is with regard to the suit schedule undivided share in the land and the common area and other facilities in the Dennison Apartments. The description and measurement of the suit schedule property as furnished is as under:

"All that piece and parcel of the undivided share of land, common areas and facilities in Dennison Apartments, No. 12, Hall Road, Richard Town, Bangalore-5, measuring North 70 feet 9 inches, South 70 feet 9 inches, East by 121 feet 10 inches and West by 121 feet 10 inches, total site area of 8619 sq. ft., built in area of 16230 sq. ft., consisting of 12 apartments, bounded by N-Hall Road, S-Conservancy Lane, E-Old No. 19 Hall Road and W-Old No. 21 Hall Road."

3. The 1st defendant Premila Grubb alongwith her mother owned a vacant land measuring 8,619 sq. ft. She alongwith her mother entered into a contract with the 2nd defendant to develop the land and build 12 apartments (flats) in the vacant place and named it as Dennison Apartments. According to the plaintiff, the undivided common areas around the main building including 5 coconut trees and some other trees and also a garage built unauthorizedly claimed by 1st defendant for her exclusive use was meant for the benefit of all the apartment owners. The 1st defendant, after the construction of 12 independent flats with car parking and other facilities took one flat bearing No. 3 in the ground floor of the Dennison Apartments. Plaintiff purchased Flat No. 303.

4. According to the plaintiff, as per his sale deed and also as per the sale deeds of other apartment owners who purchased the apartments, each one was entitled for an undivided share of the total ground area of 8,619 sq. ft. and other common facilities used by the apartment owners. However, the 1st defendant excluded the other owners from the use of the common areas in and around the main building. She erected iron gates and started locking them thereby excluding the use of the open space by the other 11 apartment owners. Plaintiff further alleged that the garage built by the 1st defendant was unauthorized as it was not part of the approved plan. He urged that 1st defendant's claim of exclusive use over this garage has caused great obstacle for movement of fire tenders and firemen around the apartment building in case of fire, etc. It was also urged that the 1st defendant had unauthorizedly constructed a latrine in the vacant space claiming exclusive right over its use.

5. The plaintiff urged that the exclusive claim by the plaintiff over the coconut and other trees in and around the building and her attitude in not allowing the employees and officials of the KEB and KPTCL to dress the trees has proved dangerous and was a cause for fire accident in the plaintiff's flat causing loss to him and others. A legal notice was sent to the 1st defendant in this regard but the same was returned without service on the defendant. Hence, the suit was filed.

6. Both defendants 1 & 2 filed separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 contended, at the outset, that the undivided open space around Dennison Apartments and the trees in respect whereof the relief of injunction was sought having not been specifically described and shown in the plaint, the suit was not maintainable. She emphatically denied that total extent of land measuri