Under Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 of CPC, it is mandatory for the trial court to frame all issues arising in the suit before considering preliminary issues.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application in IA No.9 under Order 14 Rule 1 and 5 CPC, the plaintiff in OS No.374/2016 on the file of the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, has preferred this petition.

2. The petitioner filed OS No.374/2016 against the respondents for permanent injunction to restrain them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The subject matter of the suit is site bearing No.986 in 4th Phase of Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Layout, Girinagar, Bengaluru, measuring 30 feet x 50 feet.

3. The petitioner's case in brief is as follows :

That he is the member of the 4th respondent-Society and on his application, suit site was allotted to him. He paid Rs.60,000.00 on 11/8/1995 by way of two cheques of Rs.30,000.00 each and Rs.20,000.00 by cash on 17/3/2002. He paid Rs.2,00,000.00 to the President of the Society though the initial price fixed was only Rs.60,000.00. The Society issued him possession certificate on 10/8/1996 and put him in possession. Assigning site No.928 to the same site, on 20/6/2003 the Society sold the same to one Sudha Acharya. He filed O.S. No.805/2004 against Sudha Acharya and 4th defendant-Society -Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society Limited, for permanent injunction. That suit was decreed. Thereafter, on 30/11/2007 he issued notice to defendant No.4-Society calling upon to execute the sale deed. Defendant No.4 issued reply dtd. 10/12/2007 claiming Rs.4,000.00 per sq. ft. as sale consideration. He raised dispute before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in JRBMD-89/2007-08. Pending said proceeding, defendant No.4 again sold the same site to defendant No.3 assigning site No.389. Defendant No.4 also sold site to Meera Priyadarshini, who in turn sold that to P. Gajendra assigning site No.977 to the said site. P. Gajendra sold the site on 30/11/2013 to defendant No.3. Society indulged in malpractices manipulating the documents, therefore, allottees filed W.P.No.6945/2008 against the Society and others. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Society to prepare the Seniority List of the Members of the Society and allot them the sites. Respondent No.3 and another filed O.S.No.2570/2014 against the plaintiff and others for permanent injunction.

They withdrew that suit on 2/7/2015. On 17/7/2015 defendant No.3 sold the property to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 based on said document, defendants are obstructing the peaceful possession. Hence, he sought for permanent injunction.

4. Defendants contested the suit disputing the plaintiff's claim or his eligibility to purchase the same. They disputed the plaintiff's possession of the property. They claimed that Society had allotted a site to the wife of the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to any further site. They claim that the suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration is not maintainable and suit is hit by Sec. 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. They also disputed his entitlement to seek permanent injunction. They disputed the identity of the property also.

5. In the suit, the petitioner filed application for temporary injunction. The trial Court rejected the said application. The petitioner challenged that order before this Court in MFA No.1329/2016 (CPC). In that appeal, this Court granted an interim order against the respondents restraining them from putting up any further construction till further orders of the Court in the appeal. This Court disposed of that appeal by order Annexure F2 dated 06.01.2021, directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In that order, it was held, interim order dtd. 31/3/2016 directing no further construction on the suit schedule property shall continue to remain in force.

6. When that MFA was pending, the trial Court in the suit framed the following three issues as