Judgment Plaintiff is the appellant. Respondent is the defendant. The suit filed in the Trial Court is one for grant of decree of permanent injunction against the respondent and its officials or anybody claiming through it. The property shown in the schedule of the plaint is site No. 3 being a portion of Sy. No. 18/1 of Kodihalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk bearing site Nos. 2069 and 2080, HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore South Taluk. Plaintiff purchased the vacant plot of land bearing No. 3 in Sy. No. 18/1 of Kodihalli Village, under a registered sale deed dated 20-5-1975. The said property originally belonged to one Shamanna, son of Ulsoorappa and according to the plaintiff his vendor was in the lawful possession prior to the sale. It was contended by the plaintiff that, there is no acquisition proceedings and even subsequent to the purchase, no notice was caused to him regarding any acquisition or formation of layout or allotment of site by the respondent. Plaintiff averred that she has put up a construction in the property and later she learnt that, the acquired land was demarcated as “Built up Area” and to the said effect the respondent displayed and demarcated in the BDA map in respect of HAL 3rd Stage and the plaint schedule property was given site Nos. 2069 and 2080 by the BDA. According to the plaintiff, her possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property is lawful. She contended that the officials of BDA tried to dispossess her from the plaint schedule property. 2. Respondent/defendant filed written statement and contested the suit. It was inter alia contended therein that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (“the Act” for short). Though the sale deed dated 19-5-1975 was not seriously disputed, it is contended that the plaintiff has not acquired any valid right and title over the plaint schedule property in view of the fact that, the land bearing Sy. No. 18/1 of Kodihalli Village was acquired by the Government for the benefit of the BDA in pursuance of the preliminary notification dated 21-9-1967. The final notification was gazette on 28-7-1971. Notices under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to the notified kathedars Halasarappa S/o. Muneppa, Shamanna S/o. Alasurappa and others. No. 18/1 of Kodihalli Village was acquired by the Government for the benefit of the BDA in pursuance of the preliminary notification dated 21-9-1967. The final notification was gazette on 28-7-1971. Notices under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to the notified kathedars Halasarappa S/o. Muneppa, Shamanna S/o. Alasurappa and others. Acquisition formalities as required under the L.A. Act were complied with and the award was passed by the LAO on 20-11-1974. The possession was taken and was handed over to the Engineering Section. The award amount has been sent to the Civil Court. It was contended that the defendant formed layout of sites and allotted the sites to the respective allottees and that the plaint schedule property has been numbered as site Nos. 2069 and 2080. It was contended that in view of the acquisition proceedings, the alleged purchase of the property by the plaintiff has no value in the eye of law and that she has not acquired any title to the same and that she is not in lawful possession of the property. 3. Based on the material pleadings, the learned Trial Judge raised the following issues for consideration: (i) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property? (ii) Whether there is interference by the defendant? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the perpetual injunction sought for? (iv) Whether the suit is bad for want of a notice under Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act? (v) What decree or order? 4. Plaintiff deposed as P.W.1 and examined one Smt. Yellamma as P.W.2. Exs. P.1 to P.16 were marked. For the defendant, its officials deposed as D.Ws. 1 and 2 through whom Exs. D.1 to D. 3 were marked. Considering the rival contentions and upon appreciation of the material evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has answered issues 1 to 3 in the negative and issue No. 4 in the affirmatives and as a result, dismissed the suit by giving one month time to the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule property and directed the defendant not to vacate the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property within one month period. It was noticed that, the plaintiff after the acquisition proceedings, had erected a temporary structure though she did not had title over the schedule property and that her possession is not lawful. It was noticed that, the plaintiff after the acquisition proceedings, had erected a temporary structure though she did not had title over the schedule property and that her possession is not lawful. 5. Sri G.M. Anand learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, if the Court were to hold that the suit is bad for want of statutory notice under Section 64 of the Act, it ought not to have recorded the findings on other issues, as the same would be without jurisdiction. He contended that, the Trial Judge has not noticed sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act and hence the impugned judgment/decree is liable to be set aside. Alternatively it was contended, if the finding on issue No.4 is held to be valid, the finding recorded on other issues are liable to be set aside since the plaintiff has always the right to institute another suit on the same cause of action after issuing statutory notice and that right is now taken away and anything subsequent to the suit, the findings recorded on issues 1 to 3 would operate as res judicata. Learned Counsel contended that, the learned Trial Judge has committed material error and illegality and hence interference is called for. 6. Sri B.V. Shankara Narayan Rao. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand contended that, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge on issues 1 to 3 is based on the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff. Learned Counsel contended that, the Trial Court’s judgment/decree being appealable, since issue No. 4 was not tried as a preliminary issue and in view of both parties leading the evidence, the Trial Court had an obligation to record findings on all issues, to enable the Appellate Court, in case the appeal is preferred to adjudicate the matter both on maintainability and also on merits, in view of which the Trial Court has recorded findings with reference to the evidence and the rival contentions and thus has not committed any error or irregularity much less illegality. Learned Counsel submitted that, keeping in view the record of the suit, the impugned judgment/decree is sustainable. 7. I have perused the record. Learned Counsel submitted that, keeping in view the record of the suit, the impugned judgment/decree is sustainable. 7. I have perused the record. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in recording the findings on issues 1 to 3 on merits, if the suit is not maintainable for want of a statutory notice under Section 64(1) of the Act?” 8. Undeniably, appellant/plaintiff has not served the notice under Section 64(1) of the Act. Plaint does not contain any averment regarding service of notice under Section 64(1) of the Act. No application was filed under sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act seeking leave of the Court to institute the suit stating any urgency. The Trial Court has not passed any order in exercise of the jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act. Serving of prior notice under Section 64(1) of the Act is mandatory unless the Court is approached with an application under sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act and the Court upon consideration of the matter in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it, the Court passes an order under sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act. 9. The case of plaintiff/appellant makes it clear that the reliefs which she sought against the defendant is in respect of the action taken by the authority and its officials in performing their duties and obligations under the Act. The suit was filed without issuing notice under Section 64(1) of the Act. In the absence of the notice under Section 64(1) of the Act and without their being any prayer for passing an order under sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act, plaint cannot at all be entertained by the Court. On the face of the record, the plaint is barred by the provision under Section 64(1) of the Act and is liable to be rejected in exercise of jurisdiction under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. If any authority is required to be noticed in that regard, we can find in the cases of K.P. Arvind and Another v. Government of Karnataka and Others1 and Smt. Rangamma v. The Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority2. 10. If any authority is required to be noticed in that regard, we can find in the cases of K.P. Arvind and Another v. Government of Karnataka and Others1 and Smt. Rangamma v. The Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority2. 10. The contention of Sri G.M. Anand, learned Counsel for the appellant that, the learned Trial Judge has committed an error in answering issues 1 to 3, is well-founded. If the suit is not maintainable on account of statutory bar like the one under Section 64(1) of the Act, issue No. 4 ought to have been treated as a preliminary issue and the matter disposed of. The Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint in view of the statutory bar contained under Section 64(1) of the Act. In such a situation, it was unnecessary for the learned Trial Judge to have gone into the trial of the suit and record findings on the merits of the claim, inasmuch as, the plaint ought to have been rejected by exercising the jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC. In such an event, it would have been open for the appellant/plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action after complying with the statutory requirement contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act. The findings recorded on issues 1 to 3 are one without jurisdiction since the findings have been recorded in a suit of which the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain. Hence the findings on issues 1 to 3 recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. However the finding recorded on issue 4 is well-founded, since the plaintiff/appellant has not caused the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Act to the respondent prior to the institution of the suit. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal stands allowed in part. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment on issues 1 to 3 stand hereby set aside. The finding recorded on issue No.4 stands upheld. As a result, the plaint stands rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Plaintiff/ appellant would be at liberty to bring a suit after complying with legal requirement. Contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration in appropriately instituted suit. If any. The finding recorded on issue No.4 stands upheld. As a result, the plaint stands rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Plaintiff/ appellant would be at liberty to bring a suit after complying with legal requirement. Contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration in appropriately instituted suit. If any. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs throughout.