S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 6.11.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in MFA Nos. 8773 of 2006 and 8939 of 2006. Contesting defendant in the suit is Appellant No. 1 before us. Principally, the dispute relates to site No. 433 measuring 30 ft. x 50 ft. appurtenant to Survey No. 15/1 situate in Kattriguppa Village, Hobli Uttarahallai in the District of Bangalore. By a notification dated 28.10.1971, Bangalore Development Authority (The Authority) in exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act purported to have acquired Survey No. 15/1. The Authority allegedly allotted the said site to Respondent No. 2 Leela Prabhakar Rao on 1.11.1979. Plaintiff- Respondent No. 1 is said to be in possession of site Nos. 434 and 435. He has raised constructions thereupon. A notice was issued by the Authority directing demolition of some alleged unauthorized construction made by him. He filed a writ petition thereagainst which was marked as W.P. No. 32227 of 1992. The said writ petition, however, in absence of the counsel of Respondent No. 1, was dismissed.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 later on sought permission to raise constructions in Site Nos. 434 and 435 wherefor he expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the requisite charges. A deed of sale was executed in favour of RESPONDENT No. 2 on 23.08.1996 and a possession certificate was issued in her favour in respect of the said site No. 433 on 5.03.1997. A deed of sale was registered in the name of Smt. Vishala Raj for Site No. 432 on 15.09.1997 and possession certificate was issued on 22.10.1997. Appellant No. 1 herein purchased Site Nos. 433 and 432 from RESPONDENT No. 2 and Smt. Vishala Raj by registered deeds of sale dated 11.06.2004 and 8.06.2006 respectively. Allegedly, her name was also mutated in the record of rights. A building plan was submitted by her which was sanctioned for construction of a residential house on the said plots. Allegedly, Respondent No. 1 again on 7.07.2006 sought for reconveyance of Site Nos. 434 and 435. As he apprehended that Appellant No. 1 herein would raise constructions on Site No. 433, he filed a suit against Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, Respondent No. 2 and the Authority in the Court of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore inter alia praying for the following reliefs: (i) directing them not to use the Borewell put up in site No. 433 for any purpose for all time to come. (ii) Directing them not to put up any compound wall or construction in site No. 433 and also not change the nature of site in any manner. ;