JUDGMENT : This appeal is by the plaintiff before the Trial Court and he is aggrieved by the suit filed by him for permanent injunction being dismissed. 2. The case of the appellant before the Trial Court was that he is the absolute owner of Site No. 63-A, having Khata No. 123/1, carved out of Sy. No. 1 situated at Jarakabandakaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 40 + 60/2 feet and North to South 51 + 25/2 feet and it is his further case that the said suit schedule property was purchased under the sale deed dated 2-2-2001 from his vendor C.N. Nanjundaiah. It is also his case that he has put up a A.C. Sheet house in the suit property, but that got damaged due to dilapidated condition and at present the suit property is a vacant site. It is also his case that he had made an application before the respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (B.M.P.) for entering his name in the Khata in respect of suit property, but the said application is still under consideration by the B.M.P. The title of his vendor was also traced to the document of sale deed dated 8-4-1991 and putting all these facts as the basis for the suit, relief of permanent injunction was sought against the respondent-B.M.P. as the respondent is in the process of forming a road in the suit schedule property. 3. The respondent-B.M.P. contested the said suit by denying the facts of the appellant being owner of the suit schedule property and it is the case of the B.M.P. that the appellant has been trying to knock off the property viz., a road and the suit property is being used by public as road and the appellant by giving some fictitious numbers, is trying to squat over the road and certain documents were also fabricated by him to knock off the property belonging to the B.M.P. It is also contended that the appellant was not in possession of the suit schedule property and on these averments, the suit of the appellant was sought to be dismissed. 4. Learned Trail Judge in the light of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. 4. Learned Trail Judge in the light of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with a given boundaries and measurement as on the date of filing of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interferences made by the defendant in the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the defendant proves that there is a road over the suit schedule property and that it belongs to the defendant-Corporation? 5. After considering the evidence let in by the parties, learned Trail Judge recorded negative findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 and answered Issue No. 3 in favour of the B.M.P. by holding that the suit schedule property is a road belonging to the defendant-Corporation. Suit of the plaintiff was accordingly dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel Sri T. Sheshagiri Rao for the appellant and learned Counsel Sri T. Jayaprakash for the B.M.P. and perused the records of this case placed in the paper book. 7. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the finding on Issue No. 3 by the Trial Court is erroneous as the defendant had failed to establish that the suit schedule property is a road. No document was produced to show that the road was formed in accordance with the requirement of the Corporation Rules like maintenance, drainage on both sides etc. Referring to the evidence of D.W. 1, it is submitted that the evidence of the said witness would go to show that no road as such was formed by the Corporation. Further submission made is that the plaintiff having acquired the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 2-2-2001 as per Ex. P. 3 and title of his vendor Nanjundaiah also having been traced to another sale deed dated 8-4-1981, the Trial Court could not have disbelieved the plaintiffs version and if khata is not issued in the name of the plaintiff, it was not the plaintiffs fault because all the information that was sought by the Corporation under Ex. P. 5 had been furnished by the plaintiff but no action has been taken as of now by the Corporation regarding issuance of khata to the plaintiff. It is therefore submitted that, in the face of the evidence of P.W. 1 which is supported by P.Ws. P. 5 had been furnished by the plaintiff but no action has been taken as of now by the Corporation regarding issuance of khata to the plaintiff. It is therefore submitted that, in the face of the evidence of P.W. 1 which is supported by P.Ws. 2 and 3 and the documents produced viz., the sale deeds, the Trail Court could not have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the B.M.P. argued that the finding of the Trial Court on all the issues are based on evidence placed before the learned Trial Judge and particularly the Trial Judge has noticed that the plaintiff has failed to produce the khata in proof of the suit property being standing in his name in the Corporation records and secondly, no sanction plan was produced by the plaintiff, no tax paid receipts were also placed on record. Apart from that, referring to the cross-examination of P.W. 3, it was submitted that the aid witness has admitted that the suit property is being used as road by the general public and it is also in the said evidence that no conversion order was obtained before forming the sites and no sanction plan was also obtained and the revenue site was sold in favour of the plaintiff. Referring to this evidence of P.W. 3 in particular and to that of the plaintiff, submission made is that the Trial Court was justified in declining to grant the order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 9. Having thus heard both sides and after going through the evidence on record, I find that the plaintiff has failed to place documents like khata, tax paid receipts and sanction plan to show that he is in fact the owner of the suit schedule property. Even P.W. 3 the vendor of plaintiff admits that no conversion order was obtained and it was revenue site that was formed by him in the layout and no sanction plan was also obtained by P.W. 3. Even P.W. 3 the vendor of plaintiff admits that no conversion order was obtained and it was revenue site that was formed by him in the layout and no sanction plan was also obtained by P.W. 3. Considering the overall evidence and the admission made by the plaintiffs witnesses and also taking into account the evidence of P.W. 3, I am of the view that the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property, cannot be termed as erroneous and consequently the Trail Court has taken into account the evidence of P.W. 3 in arriving at the conclusion that there is a road in existence in the suit schedule property and that the road is being used by the general public. I therefore do not see any error being committed by the Trial Court insofar as declining to grant permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. 10. Notwithstanding the above observations, in view of the plaintiff stating in his evidence that he has furnished necessary material to the Corporation in response to Ex. P. 5 and the said matter is under consideration by the Corporation. I am of the view that notwithstanding the fate of this appeal, the Corporation can still be directed to consider the application and other documents given by the appellant in response to Ex. P. 5 and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 11. In the result the appeal is disposed of by directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the documents produced and particulars given by the plaintiff in response to Ex. P. 5 and pass order in accordance with law and if the Corporation finds it proper to issue khata in respect of the suit property to the plaintiff, it is at liberty to do so, but if on the other hand the Corporation declines to accept the case of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property, then the appellant herein will also have the liberty to question the said findings of the Corporation in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority. The dismissal of the appeal however shall not come in the way of the Corporation considering the case of the appellant being uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The dismissal of the appeal however shall not come in the way of the Corporation considering the case of the appellant being uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. Further, it is directed that the respondent-Corporation shall dispose of the application filed by the appellant concerning issuance of khata at the earliest and till such time, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit property.