A plaintiff seeking an injunction must amend their pleadings to include a declaration of title if the defendant raises substantial title disputes.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1(d).

2. This miscellaneous second appeal is filed against the order of remand made by the First Appellate Court directing the appellant herein to seek for appropriate relief by filing comprehensive suit for declaration and consequential relief's, since there is a dispute with regard to the title and if such application is filed, the Trial Court shall allow the parties to adduce additional evidence and also directed to give opportunity to both the parties to lead additional evidence, if any and thereafter, matter shall be decided afresh after considering whether recourse of Order XXVI CPC is necessary.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff would vehemently contend that suit is filed only for bare injunction contending that suit schedule property is purchased by the plaintiff and defendants are interfering with possession of the plaintiff. Hence, entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. It is also contended that defendant No.1 having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property with a malafide intention to knock off the same, has filed an appeal before the President, Taluka Panchayath, Maddur in Appeal No.20/2011-12 challenging the khatha of the suit property made in the name of the defendant Nos.2 and 3. In the said appeal, the plaintiff filed application to implead himself as he was necessary party by virtue of the said sale deed. But, the said Taluka Panchayath rejected the application of the plaintiff and disposed the matter hurriedly to support the illegal claim of defendant No.1 and khatha of the suit property made in the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3 has been set aside. But immediately, the plaintiff preferred the appeal before the Zilla Panchayath, Mandya in Appeal No.34/2011-12 and the same was allowed by the Zilla Panchayath, Mandya by its order dated 07.08.2012 and the khatha of the suit property was ordered to be made in the name of the plaintiff by quashing the order of the Taluka Panchayath. However, the said order of the Zilla Panchayath has been challenged by the defendant No.1 before the High Court of Karnataka and the same is pending for consideration. Taking disadvantage of the said orders passed by the President, Taluka Panchayath, Maddur, the defendants with an intention to create evidence in their favour are making illegal attempts to put up illegal construction over the suit property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement contending that defendant No.1 died subsequently and her legal representatives have been brought on record. But, it is pertinent to note that the legal representatives of defendant No.1 i.e., defendant Nos.1(a) to (g) have neither filed their separate written statement nor they adopted the written statement filed by their mother deceased defendant No.1. But, contested the suit basing the contentions taken by their mother defendant No.1 in their written statement. The defendant No.1 during her lifetime, filed written statement and she had denied the case of the plaintiff and further contended that she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On the northern side of the suit property, the house of the defendant No.1 is situated and she along with her sons and daughters were in possession of the suit property. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the residents of Mysore, they were never in possession of the suit property. the suit property