A suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without a declaration of title, particularly when there is a cloud over the plaintiff's title as indicated by a disclaimer from the vendor.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Sec. 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil ands Sessions Judge Mayo Hall, Bangalore in O.S.No.26379/2011 dtd. 1/8/2017 for having dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was defendant before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties are retained for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, alleging that the plaintiff was the owner of the Site No.63, Khatha No.24 at Basavanapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring 30 x 40 feet (herein after referred as the "suit schedule property") was purchased from previous vendor Sri.D.Nataraj s/o Sri.Doreswamy dtd. 9/4/2010. He was put in possession and paid taxes to BBMP. This property has been formed from Sy.No.24(P) of Basavanapura Village, which was darkhast land. Originally the land was granted to one Sri.Doreswamy, the father of the vendor of the plaintiff on 12/3/1979 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas. The said darkhast land belongs to Scheduled Caste. On 1/9/1977 a certificate was granted under the Regularization of Unauthorized Occupancy scheme and a Saguvali chit was issued by tahzildar on 19/4/1979. Later, after death of the original grantee, the vendor of the plaintiff Sri.D.Nataraj, under a Released Deed dtd. 25/4/2006 was executed by the wife of the Sri.Doreswamy and other children. Accordingly, sites were formed by Sri.D.Nataraj and was sold to the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. The defendant, when came near the property on 25/7/2011 and was trying to encroach the property, hence the suits came to be filed.

4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is a trespasser, having no title or interest over the property. The plaintiff's vendor's parents by name Doreswamy and Ranjithamma had sold the land on 1/6/1995 in favour of one Sri.E.Venkatesh under the registered sale deed. Later, on 24/11/1995, title has been divested in favour of the defendant. Then, the vendor of the defendant has sold the site in favour of one Smt.Savitha under sale deed dtd. 1/3/2004 and she has paid the taxes. Smt.Savitha sold the property in favour of the defendant under sale deed dtd. 15/4/2010. The defendant has remitted the taxes to BBMP. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order and Deputy Commissioner also passed an order and the same was questioned by Sri.E.Venkatesh before the High Court in writ petition and a stay was granted by the High Court. In the writ petition, Sri.D.Nataraj is the respondent No.4, who is the vendor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's vendor has no locus standi to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, as the suit schedule property is the subject matter in O.S.Nos.8050/2005, 2360/2007 and the W.P.No.9407/2007. Therefore, the sale deed of the plaintiff is lis-pendency and the plaintiff obtained the sale deed by fraud. Hence, without suit for declaration of title, the bare injunction is not maintainable. Hence, prayed for dismissing the suit. Based upon the pleadings the Trial Court framed following issues,

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property, on the date of the suit? 2) Whether plaintiff proves the alleged interference? 3) What decree or order?

5. In support of the plaintiff's case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked 31 documents. In support of defendant, she herself was examined as DW1 and got marked 32 documents. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 in negative and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit,