Judgment :- 1. This is a defendant's appeal. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. 2. It was the plaintiff's case that she was the absolute owner of a residential site bearing no. 20 at Mathikere, Bangalore, measuring about 30 feet - East to west and 45 feet - north to south, with the following boundaries : East by : Property no. 19 West by : Property of Munihanumaiah North by : Road South by : Property no. 16 The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property from Smt. Leela Bai, under a registered sale deed dated 31.1.1973. The plaintiff further claimed that her sister had purchased the adjoining site to the east of her property under a sale deed dated 20-11-1972 also from the plaintiff's vendor, Leela Bai. It is the plaintiff's further case that Leela Bai , her vendor, had purchased the two sites in the year 1959 , from Shivappa yane Narayan Rao and K. Adappa. She had produced the encumberance certificates in respect of the suit property from the year 1958 to 1987. It was stated that towards the south of the suit property there is site no.16 , attention is drawn to the sale deed pertaining to the said property indicating the plaintiff's property as the northern boundary of that property. She has similarly drawn attention to the boundaries of site no. 17 and 18, purchased by one Mukundraj in the year 1959 from Shivappa yane narayan Rao and Adappa, indicating Leela bai, the plaintiff's vendor, as the owner of the property on the western boundary, site no.19. The complaint of the plaintiff was that the suit property was a vacant site as on the date of suit. The defendant, it is said, had suddenly brought men and material on the property on 8-1-1988 and had commenced earth work, apparently to lay foundation for construction. The plaintiff was therefore constrained to file a civil suit for injunction in case no. OS 493/1988, on the file of the City Civil Court , Bangalore. Though there was an order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, it is the plaintiff's grievance that the defendant had relentlessly carried on the construction even during the pendency of the suit , with the active connivance of the local police and had completed the construction. Though there was an order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, it is the plaintiff's grievance that the defendant had relentlessly carried on the construction even during the pendency of the suit , with the active connivance of the local police and had completed the construction. Her application for disobedience of the injunction order was not considered. As that suit for the relief of bare injunction was no longer efficacious, she had filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, seeking declaration of title, possession and mandatory injunction. 3. The defendant had contested the suit. The defendant had, in turn, claimed that he was the owner of site no.20 which he had purchased under a sale deed dated 8.2.1977. He had no claim over the plaintiff's site bearing no.17. The defendant claimed to have constructed a small dwelling unit on the back portion of the site, in the year 1979 and had been living there since then. He had thereafter obtained sanction of plan for a building on the front portion of the site, in the year 1987 and had put up further construction. The erstwhile Bangalore City Corporation had issued Khata and has been collecting taxes in respect of the said property. According to the defendant the claim of the plaintiff is in respect of a site, two sites away from his property to the east. It is only in the year 1988 that the defendant has sought to make a claim in respect of the defendant's property. That the suit was barred by limitation. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings the trial court had framed the following issues : "1. Whether plaintiff proves her title to the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has constructed the building in the suit schedule site violating the injunction order passed in 493/1988? 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view or the previous suit viz. O.S.493/1988 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant? 4. Whether the suit is barred by time? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession, directing the defendant by way of mandatory injunction to remove the structure put up by him? O.S.493/1988 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant? 4. Whether the suit is barred by time? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession, directing the defendant by way of mandatory injunction to remove the structure put up by him? " The trial court had dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 30.11.1989, holding that the property claimed by the plaintiff was actually site no. 17 belonging to the defendant and not site no. 20. The said judgment was challenged in appeal before this court in RFA 736/2001, both the parties had sought to produce additional evidence before this court. This court by its judgment dated 1.2.2009 had remanded the matter for a reconsideration of the controversy between the parties with particular reference to the manner in which the dispute appears to have arisen, as pointed out by the trial court in its earlier judgment, graphically. It was observed that the formation of the sites by the developer, according to the plaintiff, was as follows : Road Chikkabasappa's Land 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Muni Hanumaiah's Land Road “IMAGE” And according to the defendant, it was as follows : Road Chikkabasappa's Land 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Muni Hanumaiah's Land Road The parties have thereafter tendered additional evidence before the trial court by producing the sale deeds in respect of all the above said sites and each has sought to assert the respective claim. The court below has held Issues no.1 and 5 in the affirmative, Issue no.2 partly in the affirmative and Issues no. 3 and 4 in the negative. The trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, as prayed for. 5. Shri Jayakumar Patil, Senior Advocate, appearing for the counsel for the appellant, contends that the trial court has been misled by the sale deeds produced by the plaintiff, namely, Exhibits P-2 to P-5, P-9, P-22, P-23 and P-26. It is pointed out these are all documents indicating particular boundaries, inconsistent with boundaries of the site purchased by the defendant, the same were all subsequent to Ex.P-29, which is of the year 1958, pertaining to site no. 17. It is pointed out that the documents produced by the defendant consistently showed the flow of title, correctness of boundaries and the formation of sites. 17. It is pointed out that the documents produced by the defendant consistently showed the flow of title, correctness of boundaries and the formation of sites. On the other hand, it is pointed out that after sites were formed in original land bearing survey no.41/2 measuring 33 guntas by one Kurubara Kempaiah, he had sold the following sites No. 2 and 13 to 20, to one Rajappa under a Sale deed dated 13.2.1958 (Ex.D-13 ) and sites bearing nos. 1 and 5 to 12, to one Munishyamappa, son of Muninarasimaiah, under a sale deed dated 13-2-1958 (Ex.D-10), those two purchasers had sold all the sites, except site no.17, to Shivappa yane Narayana Rao and Adappa under two sale deeds, dated 6.4.1959 (Ex.D-11) and 11.5.1959 (Ex.P-26), respectively. On the other hand, site no. 17 had been sold by Rajappa to Munishyamappa, son of Narayanappa, under a sale deed dated 5.9.1958 (Ex.P-29) and the same was in turn sold to Ramakrishna under a sale deed dated 21.5.1973 (Ex.D-1), from whom the defendant had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 8.2.1979 ( Ex-D.2) . The above transactions, as well as the subsequent transactions, including the transactions under which the plaintiff claims the property, are depicted in a flow chart as under : “CHART” It is highlighted by Shri Patil, that the mischief is clearly seen in Shivappa yane Narayan Rao and Adappa, who had a free hand in giving a description to the sites conveyed under the sale deeds executed by them in respect of the seven sites namely, 13 to 16 and 18 to 20, in the manner they chose. In that , they have described the site numbers inconsistent with the original layout formation. It is also evident that there is alienation of an additional site no.17 in favour of one Mukundraj , dated 10-8- 1959 ( Ex.P-9), this is inexplicable. As seen from Ex.D-11, site no. 17 was clearly excluded from the sale of sites in favour of Shivappa yane Narayana Rao and Adappa. It is pointed out that the error in the judgment of the trial court is on account of a mechanical application of the boundaries depicted in the sale deeds produced by the plaintiff. And the above serious deviation was completely overlooked. 17 was clearly excluded from the sale of sites in favour of Shivappa yane Narayana Rao and Adappa. It is pointed out that the error in the judgment of the trial court is on account of a mechanical application of the boundaries depicted in the sale deeds produced by the plaintiff. And the above serious deviation was completely overlooked. Incidentally, the local authority having renumbered the same as 15/4, does not cure the defect of want of title of the vendor's of Mukundraj in respect of site no.17. It is further pointed out by Shri Patil, that the graphic depiction of the block of sites as shown by the defendant is consistent with the boundaries shown in all the sale deeds pertaining to site no.17 purchased by the defendant. In that, Munihanumaiah's property has consistently remained the western boundary. There by indicating that the site nos. 17 to 20 ran from west to east and not the other way. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Smt.K.K.Thayamma, appearing for the respondent contends, that there cannot be any dispute that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Leela Bai, under a registered sale deed dated 31.1.1973 (Ex.P-2). The defendant on the other hand claims to have purchased site no.17 under a sale deed dated 8.2.1979 (Ex.D-2). The plaintiff had thus purchased the property six years earlier to the purchase of the property by the defendant. It is pointed out that the adjoining property no.19 to the east of the suit property, is property purchased by the sister of the plaintiff, that sale deed (Ex.P-4) also indicates the western boundary as the suit property. The plaintiff had also produced the sale deed pertaining to property no.16, purchased on 20.5.1981 (Ex.P-5). The deed indicates the northern boundary of the property, as the suit property. It is further pointed out that Ex.P-9 is the sale deed in favour of one Mukundraj, in respect of Site no.17 and 18 and the same also indicates the western boundary as site no.19. Mukundarj having sold the sites in the year 1988 and 1989 under Ex.P-21 and Ex.P-22, respectively, the boundaries indicated in those sale deeds would also confirm the location of the suit property. The plaintiff has also produced the sale deed pertaining to site no.13 (Ex.P-23) to evidence the fact that the northern boundary is Site no.17. Mukundarj having sold the sites in the year 1988 and 1989 under Ex.P-21 and Ex.P-22, respectively, the boundaries indicated in those sale deeds would also confirm the location of the suit property. The plaintiff has also produced the sale deed pertaining to site no.13 (Ex.P-23) to evidence the fact that the northern boundary is Site no.17. The learned counsel would therefore, seek to point out that the sale deeds of all the adjoining properties having been produced to indicate and confirm the location of the suit property, the defendant has miserably failed to establish any case. It is contended that the documents relied upon by the defendant are ambiguous and cannot be accepted. It is pointed out that, the defendant's vendor's vendor is said to have purchased the property claimed by him, under Ex.P-29. The northern boundary is shown as Site no.13 and the southern boundary as road. But the defendant relying on Ex.D-2 indicates the Northern boundary as road and the southern boundary as site no.13. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was a rectification of the deed or deeds, even if there was an inadvertent error committed. It is contended that the defendant admittedly having purchased the property claimed by him, much after the plaintiff had purchased the suit property, the illegal occupation of the same and any construction thereon, which was in violation of an order of injunction granted by the lower court, would not confer any right on the defendant as he had no title to the suit property. The property claimed by him is admittedly identified as No. 17. It is also contended that the alleged sanctioned plan obtained in respect of any construction put up or the payment of taxes does not clothe the defendant with any valid title, nor does the same perfect his possession. Further, the absence any such revenue records in favour of the plaintiff is only on account of these proceedings and hence it is pleaded that the plaintiff should no longer be denied the benefit of the judgment and decree of the trial court and seeks dismissal of the appeal. 7. By way of reply, Shri Patil would candidly admit that there is an error found in the northern and southern boundaries having been interchanged in the sale deed dated 5.9.1958 (Ex.P- 29) in favour of Munishyamappa, a predecessor in title of the defendant. 7. By way of reply, Shri Patil would candidly admit that there is an error found in the northern and southern boundaries having been interchanged in the sale deed dated 5.9.1958 (Ex.P- 29) in favour of Munishyamappa, a predecessor in title of the defendant. This has been corrected in the subsequent sale deeds dated 21.5.1973 ( Ex.D-1 ) and 8.2.1979 (Ex.D-2), in favour of the defendant. This however, would not seriously affect the title and possession of the defendant for the purposes of this suit, as the claim of the plaintiff is in respect of a different property and not the property claimed by the defendant. He would insist that there is no error in so far as the identity and location are concerned. 8. In the light of the above rival contentions and on an examination of the record, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff claims property bearing site no. 20 and the defendant claims property bearing site no.17, in the same private lay out, apparently formed as early as in the year 1958. Not withstanding that there are two inter mediate sites that would be in existence between the properties claimed by the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant on the other, while according to the plaintiff the western boundary of site no.17 is site no.18, according to the defendant the site no. 18 is on the eastern boundary of site no. 17; The difference arises on account of the plaintiff claiming that the sites bearing no. 13 to 16 forming one row and sites bearing no. 17 to 20, to the north of sites 13 to 16, both run east to west in the ascending order. Whereas , according to the defendant Sites 13 to 16 run east to west and sites bearing no. 17 to 20, to the north of 13 to 16, run west to east in the ascending order. It is seen from the flow chart above that Rajappa had purchased both Sites no. 17 and 20, apart from other sites, under the sale deed dated 13.2.1958 (Ex.D-13). He had sold site no.17 to Munishyamappa under Ex.P-29 dated 5.9.1958. The defendant ultimately having purchased the same under Ex-D-2 dated 8.2.1979, the western boundary in all the sale deeds, namely, Ex.P-29, Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 is shown as Munihanumaiah's land and the eastern boundary as site no.18 . He had sold site no.17 to Munishyamappa under Ex.P-29 dated 5.9.1958. The defendant ultimately having purchased the same under Ex-D-2 dated 8.2.1979, the western boundary in all the sale deeds, namely, Ex.P-29, Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 is shown as Munihanumaiah's land and the eastern boundary as site no.18 . This would indicate that sites no. 17 to 20 were taken as running from west to east. These are boundaries indicated by Rajappa, the common vendor of sites no. 17 and 20. Though Rajappa had indicated the specific boundaries of site no. 17 in Ex.P-29, in so far as the sale of site no. 20 under the sale deed dated 6.4.1959 ( Ex- D-11) in favour of Shivappa yane Narayana Rao and Adappa, he has while excluding site no. 17, in the Schedule to the said sale deed, has furnished the common boundary of the entire land comprising sites no. 13 to 20, thus : East by : Chinnathayappa's land West by : Site no.1 North by : Thoti Puttappa's land South by: Muniswamappa's land Thereafter, Shivappa yane Narayana Rao and another have sold site no.20 to Smt.Leela bai, under Ex.P-3 dated 6.6.1959. The same vendors have sold the other sites in the block, namely, 13 to 19, excluding 17. However, a site no. 17 is yet shown to have been sold by the above said vendors of the plaintiff, in favour of Mukundraj under Ex.P-9. Under Ex.P-9, the said Shivappa yane Narayana Rao and another have sold two sites - 17 and 18, showing the southern boundary as site no. 13 and 14. This is inexplicable. Site no.17 had not been purchased by Rao under the sale deed Ex.D-11, in fact, it was specifically excluded. Secondly, the location of site no.17, which was sold by Rajappa had for its eastern boundary, Munihanumaiah's land and not as indicated in Ex.P9, namely Chickadasappa's land. The above circumstance would lead to a presumption that Shivappa yane Narayana Rao and Adappa have sold a site no.17 to which they had no title and have, by mistake or design, shown the site numbers 17 to 20 as running from east to west, contrary to the boundaries shown in the conveyance by Rajappa pertaining to site no.17 in favour of Munishyamappa (Ex.P-29), at the earliest point of time, indicating that the site no.17 to 20 ran from the west to the east. The plaintiff has not exercised possession over the suit property. The khatha has not been transferred in her favour, nor has she paid taxes. Reliance placed on the sale deeds in respect of neighbouring sites cannot be accepted, in the light of Rao and Adappa having acted in the manner as stated above. On the other hand, the defendant has continuously exercised possession over the property and is living there after having constructed residential units. The defendant has obtained khatha and is paying property taxes in respect of the property from the date of purchase. The reasoning of the trial court in the face of the circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the court below is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.