The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish ownership of the disputed property, and the non-appearance of a necessary party can lead to adverse inferences.

B. MANOHAR, J.—The appellant is the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-3-2005 made in O.S. No. 251/1997 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, has filed this appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking for declaration declaring that, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and mandatory injunction of demolishing the existing house constructed3 by the first defendant and also seeking for possession of the suit schedule property. In the plaint it is contended that as per the registered sale deed dated 28-12-1992, she has purchased the vacant site bearing K. No. 13, Katha No. 506 situated at Herohalli, Yeswanthpura Hobli, Bangalore Taluk from the second defendant for a valuable sale consideration. The case of the plaintiff is that the second defendant formed a layout in the land bearing Sy. No. 146, thereafter the Village Panchayat has assigned Khaneshumari number to the sites formed by the second defendant. Accordingly, site No. 13 has been given to the site purchased by the plaintiff, which was measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet. After purchasing the land, the plaintiff has paid the property tax and assessment to the Village Panchayat and became the absolute owner of the said site. However, the first defendant without right, title or interest over the suit schedule property put up the residential house, which is at the finishing stage. The first defendant cannot put up the building on the site purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is residing about 23 Kms away from the suit schedule property, taking advantage of the same, the first defendant has put up illegal construction. The building is being constructed on day and night basis. Hence, she filed the suit with the above prayers.

3. The defendants entered appearance and filed common written statement contending that the suit schedule property is entirely different and distinct from the property purchased by the first defendant. The first defendant constructed the residential house in site bearing No. 6, assessment No. 726/146 measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 30 feet. The specific case of the first defendant is that as per the registered sale deed dated 20-10-1995, he has purchased site No. 6 from the second defendant. Originally, second defendant is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 146, he has executed Power of Attorney in favour of BWWSB SC/ST Cauvery House Building Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) after receiving the consideration. The said Society formed the layout and allotted site No. 6 in favour of the first defendant. Thereafter, the second defendant directly executed a sale deed in respect of the said site in favour of the first defendant. After obtaining necessary sanctioned plan from the Competent Authority and after taking loan of Rs.2,70,000/- from the Society, the first defendant constructed a residential house and he is residing therein. It was further alleged that one Venkateshmurthy, who is the Kerosene dealer taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of the second defendant, in the guise of executing sale deed in favour of the5 members of the Society had taken power of attorney from the second defendant and sold certain sites in favour of his henchmen. However, the plaintiff purchased site No. 13 in Katha No. 506 in the layout formed in Sy. No. 146 whereas the first defendant purchased site No. 6 in Katha No. 726/146 which is a different and distinct one. The plaintiff is fully aware of construction of the residential house by the first defendant and after completion of the house, the present suit has been filed and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and that defendant has illegally taken up construction of building in the suit land as all