Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The parties are referred to by their nomenclature before the trial court for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. The appellant/defendant is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the XVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rendered in O.S.No.2844/2001 whereby the Trial Court has been pleased to decree the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and thereby declared him to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and further pleased to grant an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. The case of the plaintiff was that he is the absolute owner and he had acquired ownership for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 23.10.1999. It was further contended that after the purchase of the property, he had put up a construction thereon and is presently residing in the suit schedule property along with his family members and that he had approached the Bangalore City Corporation for issuance of katha. He had also applied for telephone and electricity connections to the suit property and that he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that on 16.4.2001 the authorities i.e. the appellant herein attempted to demolish the existing structure on the property and that he (plaintiff) could prevent them only with the aid of his neighbours and that the officials retracted on account of interference by the people in the neighbourhood and that while leaving, the officials said that they would come back and demolish the same and informed that next time they would come with sufficient preparation for demolition. Hence, on these grounds the plaintiff got instituted the suit praying for the relief of declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property and he is in possession of the same and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anyone claiming through them from entering upon the schedule property with the threat to demolish the existing building.

5. In support of his claim, the plaintiff produced and got marked exhibits P1 to P20. Ex.P1 is the GPA by the plaintiff in respect of a 3rd party enabling him to conduct the suit on his behalf. Ex.P2 is the sale deed dated 23.10.1999. Ex.P3 is the encumbrance certificate for the period 1.4.1999 to 21.12.1999 in respect of a site bearing Nos.22 and 11 and assigned HA Sanitary Board katha No.63/2 and 63 and new No.513/1B. Ex.P4 is the acknowledgment issued by the BBMP dt.3.1.2001 and the demand note issued by the telecommunication department dt.14.3.2001 and a receipt for having received the initial deposit for Rs.15,000/-. Ex.P7 is another receipt issued by the KPTCL dt.19.2.2001 which is titled as an automatic receipt for a sum of Rs.100/. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are the photo and the negative to demonstrate the existence of the construction. Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 are encumbrance certificates dated 7.3.2006 and Exs.P12 to P16 are the bills for a very meagre sums in the range of 20/- and Rs.30/-. Exs.P17 and P18 are the sale deeds allegedly in the name of his vendors. Ex.P19 is an another receipt and Ex.P20 is the certified copy of another sale deed.

6. The said suit came to be resisted by the defendant by filing a detailed statement of objection dt.4.11.2004. The claim and case of the plaintiff was denied in toto. At paragraph 6 of the written statement it was specifically contended that the plaintiff has not mentioned the survey number, out of which the alleged site has been carved out, in order to demonstrate the actual existence of the suit property. It was further specifically contended that the land factually claimed is the subject matter of an acquisition initiated for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Authority was estab