A suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable when the plaintiff's title is under a cloud; the plaintiff must seek declaration of title and possession. Appellate courts may permit amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to include such reliefs rather than dismissing the suit entirely.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96

READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER

DATED 20.06.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.3377/2023 ON

THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT BENGALURU CITY., REJECTING THE I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER

ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC., FOR TEMPORARY

INJUNCTION AND ALLOWING IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 7

RULE 11(a) AND (b) FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 2.8.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT

PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Order

XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (for short 'CPC') for setting aside the judgment and decree

passed by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru in O.S.No.3377/2023 dated 20.06.2023 for having

rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The rank of the parties before the Trial Court is

retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that

the plaintiff filed a suit for declaring the sale deed dated

24.03.2022 registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar

(Kengeri), Bengaluru executed by Mirle Varadaraj in favour of the

defendants is null and void. A mandatory injunction directing the

Senior Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar (Kengeri), Bengaluru to cancel

the said sale deed from the registration records and permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the

plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property. A residential site bearing No.555 situated at

Pattanagere, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru formed from a private

Layout i.e., REMCO (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society

Limited measuring East to West 35+34/2 = 34.5 feet and North to

South 50 feet and another site bearing No.539 situated in the

same Layout having similar measurement of the site No.555

(hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule properties').

5. The plaintiff has contended in the plaint that the

Residential Layout formed by the said Society as early as 1990

with all infrastructures including the overhead water storage

tanks, civic amenities and several employees/allottees had

constructed the houses and some of the allottees have not yet

constructed the residential houses. The said Society formed the

Layout by investing several crores of rupees collected from the

allottees and named as BHEL Layout. The acquisition of land by

the Society under the agreements from the land owners of

Pattanagere Village and paid the amount and possession was

taken. The transactions were made in the year 1984-85. In

contemplation of the acquisition of lands by the Government for

the benefit of the Society, the Notification was published in the

year 1987 and the BDA has approved in the year 1988 and

Society was formed Layout as early as 1990. Some of the land

owners were challenged the acquisition proceedings and the High

Court has quashed the acquisition in the year 1991 and later, in

the writ appeal, the same was confirmed in the year 1995 and by

that time, there were several allottees constructed the houses and

residing in the Layout. The plaintiff to ensure the cloud over the

title of the Society considered the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court quashing the Notification of declaration and ratification deed

which was executed in the year 2000 and the land owners

confirmed the agreement with the Society for transfer of lands. It