JUDGMENT B. MANOHAR, J.—The appellant is the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-3-2005 made in O.S. No. 251/1997 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, has filed this appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking for declaration declaring that, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and mandatory injunction of demolishing the existing house constructed3 by the first defendant and also seeking for possession of the suit schedule property. In the plaint it is contended that as per the registered sale deed dated 28-12-1992, she has purchased the vacant site bearing K. No. 13, Katha No. 506 situated at Herohalli, Yeswanthpura Hobli, Bangalore Taluk from the second defendant for a valuable sale consideration. The case of the plaintiff is that the second defendant formed a layout in the land bearing Sy. No. 146, thereafter the Village Panchayat has assigned Khaneshumari number to the sites formed by the second defendant. Accordingly, site No. 13 has been given to the site purchased by the plaintiff, which was measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet. After purchasing the land, the plaintiff has paid the property tax and assessment to the Village Panchayat and became the absolute owner of the said site. However, the first defendant without right, title or interest over the suit schedule property put up the residential house, which is at the finishing stage. The first defendant cannot put up the building on the site purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is residing about 23 Kms away from the suit schedule property, taking advantage of the same, the first defendant has put up illegal construction. The building is being constructed on day and night basis. Hence, she filed the suit with the above prayers. 3. The defendants entered appearance and filed common written statement contending that the suit schedule property is entirely different and distinct from the property purchased by the first defendant. The first defendant constructed the residential house in site bearing No. 6, assessment No. 726/146 measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 30 feet. The specific case of the first defendant is that as per the registered sale deed dated 20-10-1995, he has purchased site No. 6 from the second defendant. Originally, second defendant is the owner of land bearing Sy. The first defendant constructed the residential house in site bearing No. 6, assessment No. 726/146 measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 30 feet. The specific case of the first defendant is that as per the registered sale deed dated 20-10-1995, he has purchased site No. 6 from the second defendant. Originally, second defendant is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 146, he has executed Power of Attorney in favour of BWWSB SC/ST Cauvery House Building Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) after receiving the consideration. The said Society formed the layout and allotted site No. 6 in favour of the first defendant. Thereafter, the second defendant directly executed a sale deed in respect of the said site in favour of the first defendant. After obtaining necessary sanctioned plan from the Competent Authority and after taking loan of Rs.2,70,000/- from the Society, the first defendant constructed a residential house and he is residing therein. It was further alleged that one Venkateshmurthy, who is the Kerosene dealer taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of the second defendant, in the guise of executing sale deed in favour of the5 members of the Society had taken power of attorney from the second defendant and sold certain sites in favour of his henchmen. However, the plaintiff purchased site No. 13 in Katha No. 506 in the layout formed in Sy. No. 146 whereas the first defendant purchased site No. 6 in Katha No. 726/146 which is a different and distinct one. The plaintiff is fully aware of construction of the residential house by the first defendant and after completion of the house, the present suit has been filed and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and that defendant has illegally taken up construction of building in the suit land as alleged in plaint? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the construction of building by defendant is on the land belonged to him and that the building is required to be demolished? (3) What relief plaintiff is entitled? (4) What order or decree? 5. The plaintiff in order to prove her case got examined herself as P.W.1 and examined two other witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked to documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. (3) What relief plaintiff is entitled? (4) What order or decree? 5. The plaintiff in order to prove her case got examined herself as P.W.1 and examined two other witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked to documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On behalf of defendants, the first defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and examined other three witnesses as D.W2 to D.W4 and got marked the documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D.23. 6. The plaintiff, in her examination-in-chief reiterated the averments made in the plaint and got marked the sale deed dated 28-12-1992 as Ex.P1, Katha extract and tax paid receipt as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and the original sale deed of site No. 14 as Ex.P5. In her cross-examination she has admitted that the first defendant constructed the house and residing therein. She does not know as to who formed the layout and what is the extent of land in Sy. No. 146. She further deposed that she does not know about the alienation of the said land in favour of the Society. Through one H.L. Venkateshmurthy, she was acquainted with the second defendant. She further deposed that she is not aware whether the first defendant purchased site No. 6 and constructed the house, taking loan from the Society. She has not seen the site personally. Further, she deposed that she does not know whether the layout was formed or not when she purchased the site. She further deposed that H.L. Venkateshmurthy worked as a middleman for purchasing of the said site. The land was not a converted land. Further she does not know whether the second defendant executed Power of Attorney in favour of the Society. 7. P.W.2 is the aunt of the plaintiff. In her evidence she has deposed that she has purchased site No. 14 in Sy. No. 146 of Herohalli village and she has constructed the house. In her cross-examination she has deposed that she has purchased the site from Venkateshmurthy, who is the GPA holder of the second defendant. The said land was not converted land, in view of that khaneshumari number was given. She deposed that she does not know whether Narasimhaiah and his brother Ramaiah sold their land in favour of the Society. The first defendant has constructed the house. The said land was not converted land, in view of that khaneshumari number was given. She deposed that she does not know whether Narasimhaiah and his brother Ramaiah sold their land in favour of the Society. The first defendant has constructed the house. Further she did not object for construction of the house by the first defendant in site No. 13 which is said to have been purchased by the plaintiff. 8. P.W.3 H.L. Venkateshmurthy, who is the GPA holder of the second defendant through whom the plaintiff has purchased the property, in his evidence has deposed that when the plaintiff purchased the property on 28-12-1992, there was one square of A.C. sheet roofing house. Since the land was not converted, khaneshumari number was given. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that he knows the second defendant from many years and the second defendant formed sites in Sy. No. 146 and he has obtained GPA from the second defendant. Site No. 13 was sold in favour of the plaintiff. The Herohalli Village Panchayat has not given site number, whereas, the second defendant has given site number as 13 and sold the same to the plaintiff. He does not know whether the second defendant sold the property in favour of the Society and executed sale deeds in favour of its members. He specifically stated that he has taken power of attorney for left over sites and sold the same. 9. The D.W1 in his evidence reiterated the averments made in the written statement and contended that he is the employee of BWSSB, the housing society acquired the land on GPA from the second defendant and formed the layout, allotted site No. 6 in his favour and the second defendant executed the sale deed. He has not paid any money to the second defendant. After obtaining loan from the Society he has constructed the house and residing therein. He got marked the sale deed dated 20-11-1995 as Ex.D2, encumbrance certificate, tax paid receipts, demand register, legal notice, membership receipt as Ex.D6 and Ex.D12. Building Plan as Ex.D14. In the cross-examination he has deposed that the Society formed the layout and allotted site No. 6 to him and the second defendant executed the sale deed. Construction of the house was completed in the year 1997 and he is residing therein. Building Plan as Ex.D14. In the cross-examination he has deposed that the Society formed the layout and allotted site No. 6 to him and the second defendant executed the sale deed. Construction of the house was completed in the year 1997 and he is residing therein. He stated that at the time of purchasing the site, it was a vacant land. He does not know, whether the plaintiff has purchased the said site in the year 1992. After executing the power of attorney by the second defendant in favour of the Society, the second defendant cannot alienate the property to the third party. 10. D.W.2 and D.W.3 are the neighbouring witnesses. They have deposed that Sy. No. 146 belonged to the second defendant. The first defendant constructed the house in the year 1997 and residing therein. In the cross-examination, nothing contrary has been elicited from D.W.2 and D.W.3. D.W.4 is the Director of BWSSB Employees Society, in his evidence he has deposed that they have entered into an agreement with the second defendant and acquired 1 acre 16 guntas of land in Sy. No. 146 and formed the layout, distributed sites to its members. The site No. 6 in all measuring 40 x 30 feet was allotted to the first defendant. The second defendant executed the sale deed on 20-11-1995. He got marked the documents as Ex.D19 to Ex.D23. Ex.D19 is the ledger extract, Ex.D20 series are the copies of agreement of sale, and Ex.D23 is the General Power of Attorney. In the cross-examination he has reiterated that sites have been formed in Sy. No. 146 and allotted to the members. Site No. 6 was allotted to the first defendant and he has constructed a house and residing therein. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant has made out a case to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by proving that the first defendant has constructed the house in site No. 13 purchased by her? 12. The records produced by the parties clearly disclose that the plaintiff has purchased site No. 13 and the first defendant purchased site No. 6 in Sy. No. 146 of the Herohalli village. The plaintiff claims that the second defendant formed a layout and through H.L. Venkatteshmurthy, she purchased site No. 13. 12. The records produced by the parties clearly disclose that the plaintiff has purchased site No. 13 and the first defendant purchased site No. 6 in Sy. No. 146 of the Herohalli village. The plaintiff claims that the second defendant formed a layout and through H.L. Venkatteshmurthy, she purchased site No. 13. However, the first defendant constructed the house in the site belonged to her and residing therein. On the other hand, the first defendant claims that the Society allotted site No. 6 in Sy. No. 146 in the layout formed by them in his favour and after obtaining the loan, he has constructed the house in the said site. The plaintiff to prove her case, examined her aunt who claims to have purchased site No. 14 and the middleman Venkateshmurthy through whom she claims to have purchased site No. 13. Except producing sale deed and tax paid receipts, no documents have been produced to show that the first defendant had constructed the house in the site purchased by the plaintiff. On the other hand, the first defendant produced the documents to show that site No. 6 was allotted by the Society, thereafter he obtained a plan from the competent authorities and constructed the house and house warming ceremony has been held in the year 1997 itself. The dispute is with regard to the identity of the property. 13. The advocate for the appellant contended that the appellant purchased the property on 28-12-1992 from the second defendant. The very same site was sold to first defendant on 20-11-1995. Though the second defendant has entered appearance he has not stepped into the witness box to resolve the dispute between the parties. Hence, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the second defendant. He relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413 in the case of Gopalakrishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohammed Haji Latif and others, and another judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 in the case of Vidhyadhar vs. Mankikrao and another and contended that where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to the cross-examination by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. 14. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that no relief has been sought against the second defendant. Prayer made in the suit is for declaration, mandatory injunction as well as possession of the suit schedule property. Further, no allegation is made against the second defendant. In the absence of the same, the second defendant is not a necessary party. Hence the judgments relied upon by the plaintiff are not applicable to the present case. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that she has purchased site No. 13 and the first defendant has constructed a house in the site purchased by her. The plaintiff has failed to prove the same. The identity of site No. 13 purchased by the plaintiff is not proved. None of the witnesses stated where exactly the site was purchased by the plaintiff in Sy. No. 146 since the entire extent of the land has been acquired by the society and formed sites and allotted to its members and any alienation made by the second defendant thereafter, is contrary to law. 15. DW.4 who is one of the directors of BWSSB Employees Society deposed that, society has formed sites in Sy. No. 146 and allotted site No. 6 in favour of the first defendant, the 2nd defendant executed the sale deed on 20.10.95. The first defendant constructed the house after obtaining the necessary plan from the competent authorities. The defendant has proved his case with regard to purchase of site No. 6. The plaintiff has to take necessary action against the second defendant. In the present case, no relief has been sought against the second defendant. The records clearly disclose that the first defendant is the member of the Society and the Society has allotted site No. 6 to him and thereafter, second defendant has executed the sale deed in favour of the first defendant and after obtaining loan, the first defendant has constructed the house. 16. The appellant has failed to prove that she is the owner of the site on which the first defendant has constructed the house. Hence, the question of declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property and issuing mandatory injunction for demolition of the house do not arise. The reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is based on the evidence on record. Hence, the question of declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property and issuing mandatory injunction for demolition of the house do not arise. The reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is based on the evidence on record. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.