JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S. No.16870/2006 on the file of XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in the said suit dated 18.08.2018, he has preferred this appeal.

2. The brief relevant facts leading to this appeal are as under:

3. Plaintiff's father Shri. M.Venkatesh, was the owner of a land bearing Sy. No.29/1 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. According to the plaintiff, she succeeded and inherited the said land after demise of her father. It is averred that the Bengaluru Development Authority, Bengaluru, sought to acquire the said property. The BDA has reconveyed the said land vide Resolution No.484 dated 28.09.1984 as per endorsement dated 02.02.1985. According to the plaintiff, after formation of the layout in the said land, the BDA reconveyed site No.3C-301/1 to 3C-301/17, 3C-201 and 3C-203 i.e. 19 sites in favour of her father.

4. The suit schedule property involved in this case is site No.3C-301/8. It was reconveyed to the plaintiff under sale deed dated 16.08.2005 executed by BDA. Accordingly, plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property. The khata stands in her name. BBMP has allotted PID No.89-397-3C-301/8. It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendant has no right, title much less possession over the suit schedule property.

5. Initially, plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction and later sought for declaration in the suit schedule property and a direction to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property.

6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared through his Advocate and resisted by filing detailed written statement denying all averments. It was inter alia contended by the defendant that he is the owner of site No.2111/1 with khata No.3315 situated at Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now re-numbered as Khata No.33, III Cross, Kammanahalli Main Road, Kacharakanahalli, Ward No.89, measuring East to West 40 ft. and North to South 60 ft.That the defendant has purchased the said property under sale deed dated 14.02.1992 and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. Based upon the pleadings, the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues:

"ISSUES:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendant?

(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?

(4) What decree or order?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has taken forcible possession of the suit schedule property and thereby he has dispossessed her from the suit schedule property?

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to the relief of vacant possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant?

8. To substantiate her case, plaintiff, examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26. Defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant and passed the impugned Judgment dismissing the prayer for declaration, but granted permanent injunction against the defendant. Plaintiff has challenged the said Judgment and Decree denying the relief of declaration on the following grounds:

9. That the plaintiff is sole owner of suit schedule property and the learned Trial Court has rejected the claim of the plaintiff relating to declaration. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree so passed by the learned Trial Court is opposed to the facts and provisions of law. P.W.1 -plaintiff has spoken before the Trial Court about her ownership of the suit schedule property. Learned Trial Court has not appreciated her evidence with regard to the sale deed executed by the BDA dated 16.08.2005 and th