JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.243/2009.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction stating that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to restrain the appellant/defendant and its officials from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent/plaintiff. The subject matter of the suit property is house No.5932 situated at Vijayanagar 2nd Stage, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysuru. The respondent/plaintiff specifically contended in O.S.No.243/2009 that the suit schedule property was allotted to one Kariyappa by the appellant/authority on 06.06.1994 and was also put in possession of the said site. Subsequently, appellant/authority has executed title deed in favour of Kariyappa which was registered as document No.10122 in Book No.1. On 10.10.2005, Kariyappa sold the suit schedule property to Smt. C.M.Madhura for valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,61,500/-under registered sale deed dated 10.10.2005 and pursuant to alienation, the original allotee namely Kariyappa delivered possession to C.M. Madhura. Smt. C.M.Madhura got her name mutated to the property extracts. Smt. C.M.Madhura in turn sold the suit schedule property to one S.Shivaprasad Mada for sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-under registered sale deed dated 24.02.2006 and possession was also delivered pursuant to execution of registered sale deed. Said Shivaprasad Mada also got his name mutated in the property extracts on the basis of the registered sale deed. The said Shivaprasad Mada having acquired right and title over the site i.e., the suit schedule property approached the City Corporation, Mysuru seeking approval of plan. The authority approved the plan and as per the approved plan, the said Shivaprasad constructed residential house in the residential property. He also secured water connection and electricity connection from respective competent authorities. On 28.06.2007, the respondent/plaintiff's vendor namely Shivaprasad Mada sold the suit schedule property to the present respondent/plaintiff for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-under registered sale deed dated 28.06.2007 and accordingly, delivered possession of the residential house to the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff got her name mutated to the katha of the suit schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff is asserting her title by relying on the title documents and sanction order in favour of the original allotee namely Kariyappa.

The present suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking declaration and consequent relief of injunction. When the present appellant/authority issued a notice as per Ex.P-20 and also pursuant to appellant/authority having caused the paper publication, the respondent/plaintiff sought for relief of declaration and injunction by relying on the registered sale deed in her favour.

Per contra, the appellant/authority on receipt of summons, contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The appellant/authority stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. At para 5 of the written statement, the appellant/authority took a contention that the suit schedule property was never allotted to Kariyappa. It is the case of the appellant/authority that Kariyappa never submitted an application seeking grant of site. It was alleged in the written statement that documents are forged by Kariyappa and others and in this regard, the appellant/authority has already lodged a criminal complaint with the jurisdictional Police Station at Lakshmipuram. It is also contended at para 5 of the written statement that respondent/plaintiff is well aware of criminal proceedings. Since respondent/plaintiff is asserting right on the basis of forged documents, she is not entitled for relief as sought in the plaint and henc