Appellate courts can reverse trial court decisions if there's a clear misinterpretation of law or evidence, particularly concerning property title and possession.

JUDGMENT :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 06^th December, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.2929 of 1988 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property came to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property bearing Site No.2 situate at V-A Main Road, formed in Survey No.94 of Saneguruvanahalli Village, Yashwanthapur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring East-West 30 Ft. and North- South 40 Ft. (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property') is bounded with the schedule as follows:

4. It is averred in the plaint that, originally the suit schedule property which is carved out of Survey No.94 of Saneguruvanahalli Village, measuring 4 acre 5 guntas belonged to one Byla Yellamma. The owner of the property had formed layout during the year-1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as '1973-Layout Plan') comprising the sites measuring East- West 35 Ft. and North-South 50 Ft. It is further stated in the plaint that, the said Byla Yellamma found that the dimension of Sites were big as per the Layout Plan of 1973 and no prospective buyers were forthcoming to purchase the big Sites and as such, she formed Sites with lesser dimension of 30 x 40 feet as per the new Layout Plan during the year-1974 (for short, hereinafter referred to as '1974-Layout Plan'). It is stated in the plaint that the suit schedule property as per 1973- Layout Plan is situated in 6^th Main Road, however, as per the 1974-Layout Plan, the suit schedule property situated at 5^th 'A' Main Road. Further it is stated that the said Byla Yellamma and her son Subbaiah had executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of Shanmugam and Nagaraj on 22^nd April, 1974 in respect of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the said Shanmugam and Nagaraj sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff herein as per registered Sale Deed dated 12^th August, 1986, which is in accordance with 1974-Layout Plan.

5. In the plaint, it is further averred that, as per the 1973-Layout Plan, the said Byla Yellamma had sold Site No.2 in favour of one Jayamma as per the registered Sale Deed dated 23^rd January, 1973. Thereafter, the said Jayamma had sold the aforementioned site in favour of one B.H. Gangamma as per registered Sale Deed dated 28^th June, 1982 along with the shed constructed on it. Subsequently, the said B.H. Gangamma had sold the Site No.2 to the defendants as per the registered Sale Deed dated 16^th November, 1987.

6. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, though the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property for valuable consideration, defendants are interfering with the same claiming their right over the suit schedule property as per the registered Sale deed dated 16^th November, 1987 executed by B.H. Gangamma in favour of defendants. It is further stated in the plaint that the husband of the defendant No.1 was the Engineer in Bangalore Development Auth