A plaintiff's failure to seek explicit title declaration does not render the suit unmaintainable if sufficient evidence of ownership exists, especially when the trial is ongoing.

ORDER :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri.Angad kamath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents.

2. Defendant No.9 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) vide I.A.No.4.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1. A suit in O.S.No.1495/2016 came to be filed by respondent No.1 in respect of following properties and in respect of following relief:

SCHEDULE

All that piece and parcel of the land situated in the survey No.3/3B situated at Ganakallu village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, an extent of about 1 acre 1 guntas and 4 guntas of kharab in total 1 acre 5 guntas out of which 9 guntas of land and the same is bounded on the:

PRAYER

Wherefore, the plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass the judgment and decree that:

1. Declare that the registered sale deed dated 06.05.2016 between the defendant No.1 to 8, represented by the defendant No.9 and defendant No.9 is concocted created, bogus, fraudulent deed and the same is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.

Consequential reliefs:

2. Declare that, the registered sale agreement dated 14.08.2014 between the defendant Nos.1 to 8, represented by the defendant No.9 and defendant No.9 is concocted created, bogus, fraudulent deed and the same is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.

3. Declare that, the registered power of Attorny dated 13.02.2012 between the defendant No.1 to 8 and defendant No.9 is concocted created, bogus, fraudulent deed and the same is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.

4. Grant permanent injunction against the defendant No.9 restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property without due process of law.

5. Award the costs of this litigation and

6. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to pass under the circumstances of this suit to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

3.2. Plaintiff contended that agriculture dry land (suit property) was the ancestral property belonging to Gali Choodaiah, son of Galirappa, Muni Hanumaya, son of Gali Choodaiah, Nagaraj, son of Gali Choodaiah, Choodaiah, son of Venkatalakshmamma, Hanumanthu and Parvathi.

3.3. They were the absolute owners of the suit property and for the legal necessity, they sold the property in favour of Sheela Shetty by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.11.1994. Thereafter, Sheela Shetty mutated the revenue entries in her name and for her legal necessity, she sold the property to Sunitha by registered sale deed dated 03.04.1995.

3.4. Plaintiff submits that Sunitha after getting the mutation of the revenue entries, enjoyed the suit property, thereafter, sold the same in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration by way of a registered sale deed dated 01.09.1995.

3.5. Plaintiff further contented that based on the registered sale deed dated 01.09.1995, she noticed that in respect of Sy.No.3/3B of Ganakallu Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter ‘BDA’ for short) by issuing a preliminary notification on 01.12.2000 and thereafter, final n