The captioned regular first appeal is filed by unsuccessful

defendant No.1 who has questioned the judgment and decree

dated 30.10.2006 passed in O.S.No.5620/1993 by the XI

Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

2.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

(a)The plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction in

O.S.No.5620/1983

against

the

defendants.

After

the

defendants appeared and filed written statement, the plaintiff

by way of amendment sought the relief of declaration and also

possession from defendants. The subject-matter of the suit is

a site bearing Corporation No.19 totally measuring 15 x 48 ft.

The plaintiff is asserting absolute right and title in the suit

schedule property on the basis of the registered sale deed

dated 28.2.1974. The plaintiff claims that one Narasimhaiah

4

was the owner of the suit schedule property and the said

Narasimhaiah sold the same in her favour under registered

sale deed dated 28.2.1974. The plaintiff claims that after

execution of the registered sale deed, her vendor delivered

possession and since then, she claims to be in exclusive

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property

without any interruption. The plaintiff further contended that

having acquired right and title over the suit schedule property

she has alienated half portion measuring 15 x 48 in favour of

One P. Ramaiah on 12.03.1981, who is none other than

defendant No.2 in the suit. The plaintiff specifically contended

that on 9.9.1993, defendant No.1 high handedly asserted right

over Schedule 8A= property and attempted to lay foundation

without any semblance of right and title. It was only on

verification, the plaintiff found that defendant No.1 is

asserting right and title to an extent of half portion in the suit

schedule property on the basis of the registered sale deed

executed by Chikkanarasimhaiah dated 11.8.1993. The

5

plaintiff specifically pleaded that the vendor of defendant No.1

had no manner of right and title over the suit schedule

property.

(b)At Para 7 (a) of the plaint, the plaintiff further

contended that defendant No.2, who is in possession of

western portion was taking care of eastern portion of the

property as the plaintiff was residing at Magadi. The plaintiff

claimed that she had authorized defendant No.2 to take care

of suit schedule property and not to induct any body.

However, the plaintiff when visited the site during the first

week of October 1988, found that defendants 3 and 4 had put

up small structures and when questioned, she was informed

that it was defendant No.2 who inducted them into the suit

schedule property on the premise that defendants 3 and 4 had

no place to reside and were inducted under permissive

possession. The plaintiff specifically averred that portion,

which is in occupation of defendants 3 and 4 is referred in

Schedule 8B9 property. On these set of pleadings, the plaintiff

6

sought declaration to declare that she is the absolute owner of

the

suit

schedule

property

and

consequently,

sought

possession from defendants 3 and 4.

(c)On receipt of summons, defendant No.1 tendered

appearance and filed written statement. The defendant No.1

stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint.

Defendant No.1 specifically contended that litigation was

pending

in

O.S.No.630/1974

between

the

vendors

of

defendant No.1 and plaintiff, which was later transferred to

Court at Magadi and the same was dismissed on 15.2.1980.

Defendant No.1 further contended that the plaintiff vendor

Narasimhaiah did not take any steps to seek restoration of the

suit and later the said Narasimhaiah along with his brother

Chikkanarasimhaiah and other members effected partition in

all the suit schedule properties belonging to the joint family.

Defendant No.1 further claimed that in the said partition deed

dated 9.3.1980, the suit schedule property fell to the share of

Chikkanarasimhaiah