K.N. Phaneendra, J.

This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the aggrieved plaintiff challenging the order dated 5th November, 2014 passed by the trial Court on I.A. No. III filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) and (d) of CPC in OS No.1527/2011, allowing the application by rejecting the plaint.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case is important to consider whether the trial Court has committed any error in rejecting the plaint under the above said provision of law.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit with the following prayer:

(i) For partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to put the plaintiff in possession of her share in the suit schedule property.

(ii) Declare the sale deed dated 11.09.2002 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of suit schedule property without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff under Document No. BNG (U)-BLR(S)/7278/2002-2003, in Book No.1 stored in CD No.85, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, as illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

(iii) Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, workmen, supporters and anybody acting on their behalf from trespassing, interfering or otherwise disturbing the peaceful, physical, lawful, actual and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the Schedule property.

(iv) Direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant on the extent of her share in the suit schedule property. The alleged purpose of alienation shown in the said sale deed dated 11.09.2002 is false.

4. The subject-matter of the suit is immovable property which is more fully described in the Schedule appended to the plaint i.e., a vacant site bearing No.119, situated at 2nd Sector, HSR (Hosur Sarjapur Road), Bangalore-560 102, measuring east to west 12.19 meters and north to south 18.90 metres, totally measuring 230.39 square metres.

5. The plaintiff has articulated the pleadings in order to claim the above said prayer stating that the plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1, by name Lakshmamma. The second defendant is the purchaser of the suit schedule property from defendant No.1. It is stated that the property bearing its survey No.191/1 of Agra village originally belonged to the grandmother of the plaintiff by name Smt. Motamma. The said land was acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority, for formation of HSR layout. The said property bearing survey No.191/1 was fallen to the share of the father of the plaintiff (husband of first defendant) in a family oral partition between the children of late Motamma after her death. The plaintiff's mother was looking after the property after the death of her husband Nanjundappa. In lieu of the property being acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority, the Bengaluru Development Authority has allotted a site which is morefully described in the Schedule in the name of the first defendant vide Allotment letter dated 14.09.2001. Except the plaintiff and the first defendant, no other legal heirs are left by the deceased Nanjundappa. Therefore, with the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 have succeeded to the said survey number and consequently, thereafter to the site allotted by the Bengaluru Development Authority.

6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the first respondent though had no exclusive absolute right over the entire property has sold the said property in favour of second defendant under a registered sale deed dated 11.09.2002 without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff, behind the back of the plaintiff. As such, the said sale deed becomes illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff so far as the plaintiff's undivided share and interest in the said property. That in spite of repeated requests and demands by the plaintiff, the first defendant has not parted with the property