N. Kumar, J.

This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the suit.

PLEADINGS

3. The subject matter of the suit is all that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy. No. 128 (old No. 51) situated at Srigandhadakaval, Bangalore North Taluk to the extent of 11.23 acres which is more particularly described in the plaint as 'A' schedule property i.e., the first item. The second item is all that piece and parcel of the land in Sy. No. 129 (old No. 51) situates at Srigandhadakaval, Bangalore North Taluk to the extent of 15 acres, which is more particularly described in the schedule and referred to as schedule 'B' property.

4. Plaintiff is a registered Trust running Educational Institutions. Their case is in order to expand the educational activities to rural areas, the plaintiff along with the defendant who are also similarly placed, approached the Government of Karnataka for grant of certain lands for the sole object of establishing Educational Institutions in rural areas. The Government of Karnataka was pleased to accord sanction to grant 25 acres of land out of the total extent of 47 acres 11 guntas available in Sy.No. 51 of Srigandhadakaval, Bangalore North Taluk in favour of the plaintiff i.e., 10 acres at an upset price of Rs. 300/- per acre and 15 acres on lease for a period of 30 years.

5. Similarly, the Government of Karnataka accorded sanction to grant the remaining extent available in Sy.No. 51 to an extent of 20 acres to the defendant i.e., Vokkaligara Sangha i.e., 10 acres at an upset price of Rs. 300/- per acre and 10 acres on lease for 30 years. The said Government order is dated 12.1.1967.

6. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff as well as the defendant have been in possession of the lands respectively which is granted by the Government. The names of the plaintiff and defendant have been jointly entered in the RTC and pahani showing the extent of hand of 25 acres to the plaintiff and 20 acres of land to the defendant. The copies of the RTC and pahanis are produced. Later on, new survey numbers have been allotted to old Sy.No. 51 as new Nos. 128, 129 and 130 showing the lands of the respective grantees. The copies of the new survey numbers allotted to the parties are also produced. As per the new survey numbers, plaintiff's new Sy.No. 128 refers to 11.23 acres of land, which is the 'A' schedule property (which includes 1.23 acres of phot karab). New Sy.No. 129 refers to 15 acres which is the 'B' schedule property. Sy.No. 130 refers to 10 acres of land which was sold to the defendant and the balance of 10 acres bears the old No. 51, which belongs to the defendant. The defendant has put up some school, college and polytechnic buildings in the land granted to them. However, looking to their location, the plaintiffs feeling is that there may be some encroachment by the defendant into the land of the plaintiff due to the fact that there was no marking based on the new survey numbers when the new survey numbers 128 and 129 were given. The plaintiff submits, based on new survey numbers corresponding RTC and pahani have been entered for the year 1993-94 in respect of the lands of the plaintiff in Sy.No. 128 for 11.23 acres and in Sy.No. 129 for 15 acres and copies of the latest RTC's are also produced. The plaintiff has spent huge amount for growing eucalyptus trees which have come to the reaping stage now. Recently, the defendant filed an appeal in R.A. 128/1994 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division challenging the RTC entries and claiming ownership for the total extent of 47 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No. 51 which includes the plaintiffs 25 acres of land. The