ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. 1. This is defendants' writ petition against the order on I.A. No.8 dated 08.07.2016 filed under Order 14, Rule 5 (1) & (2) of Code of Civil Procedure by the legal representatives of the 1st defendant in O.S. No.595/2009 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dismissing the application with cost of Rs. 200/-. 2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No.595/2009 for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint 'A' schedule property having acquired title over the same under the registered sale deed dated 29.01.1964 and for a judgment and decree directing the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the plaint 'C' and 'D' schedule properties to the plaintiff and also to direct each of the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month, as damages for their unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint 'C' and 'D' schedule properties from 21.08.2007 till they vacate and hand over vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff, contending that he acquired title to the A schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 29.01.1964 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the A schedule property, there were three tenements. The plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of one portion, and the other two portions were in the possession of defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively. It was further contended that on 15.03.1965, the 1st defendant being the eldest son of the family, executed a release deed in favour of the family upon taking certain properties as his share and plaintiff was not a party to the said document. In the release deed dated 15.03.1965, there is a reference to plaint 'C' schedule property as if the same was given to him as his share, in reality, same was not allotted to him, etc. 3. The defendants filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the 1st defendant is released from the joint family through a release deed dated 15.03.1965 and as per the released deed, 1st defendant has acquired a portion of the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.98/2, measuring 35 guntas, Sy.No.97/1 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas and 1 /3rd out of House property bearing khaneshumari No.66, New No.77, khatha No.78, with specific boundaries. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. Subsequently, defendant No. 1(b) tiled additional written statement and raised various contentions. 4. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, the legal representatives of deceased 1st defendant filed application under Order 14, Rule 5 (1) and (2) of CPC to strike out issue No.4 and for framing the following additional issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties of the plaintiff, in view of judgment and decree in R.A. 7, 8 and 9/2002? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit is not barred by principles of res-judicata, in view of judgment and decree in R.A. 7, 8 and 9/2002? 5. Reiterating the averments made in the written statement, the defendants contended that the plaintiff himself produced Exs.P.19 and 20 and the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the schedule properties are not joint family properties and in the very judgment while answering issue No.) there is a clear finding to the effect that the release deed dated 15.03.1965 is not binding on the plaintiff and said order reached finality and therefore, the question of again proving the same does not arise at all. Therefore, prayed to strike out issue No.4 and frame additional issues as prayed for. 6. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing objections and it was specifically contended that subsequent to the appearance of the defendants, the 1st defendant had filed his written statement and at paragraph 37 of the written statement, he has taken a specific contention as to how he acquired the 'C' schedule property. Based on the defence/pleadings of the 1st defendant, the Court framed issue No.4 by putting the burden to prove the same on him. It was contended that the Court would not strike out or delete the issue which is relevant for the purpose of the case and that the issue No.4 is rightly framed on the basis of the defence taken by the 1st defendant in his written statement and is required for effective disposal of the case completely and effectively. It was contended that the Court would not strike out or delete the issue which is relevant for the purpose of the case and that the issue No.4 is rightly framed on the basis of the defence taken by the 1st defendant in his written statement and is required for effective disposal of the case completely and effectively. It was further contended that proposed additional issues are nothing but negative issues against the plaintiff and the same cannot be framed and that in view of the issue No. 1 framed on 03.02.2010 i.e., "Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties" the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the issue No. 1 which is comprehensive enough to cover all aspects of the matter and therefore, sought for dismissal of the application. 7. The Trial Court, on considering the entire material on record, proceeded to dismiss the application with cost of Rs. 200/-, by the impugned order dated 08.07.2016. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 9. Sri S.S. Mahendra, learned counsel for the petitioners/legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1 vehemently contended that the Trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the application without considering the material documents on record and proposed additional issues are very much necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties. The Trial Court has erred in concluding that the issue regarding Order 11, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure has been already framed and hence, shifting the burden to prove the suit is not maintainable in view of R.A. Nos.7, 8 and 9/2002 and hence negative issue cannot be framed, is incorrect. The trial Court mislead the contentions of the petitioners and therefore, sought to set-aside the order impugned. 10. Per contra, Sri T. Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the very defence taken by the defendants in O.S. No.532/1998 which is the suit filed by them for partition and separate possession that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties, has been negatived by the Trial Court by dismissing the suit and confirmed by this Court on 21.08.2007 in RFA No.2329/2006 and re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.4353/2008 by order dated 06.02.2009. Therefore, the pleadings of the defendants that the suit schedule properties are joint family property was negatived by this Court and has reached up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and attained finality. Therefore, same cannot be re-adjudicated. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. 11. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting I.A. No. 8 filed under Order 14, Rule 5 (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 13. It is undisputed fact that the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.595/ 2009 for declaration of title based on registered sale deed dated 29.01.1964 and other reliefs. The plaint averments have been specifically denied by the 1" defendant by filing written statement. At paragraph No.37, it is contended as under: "37. It is submitted that in fact the defendant No. l is released from the joint family through a release deed dated 15.03.1965. It is submitted as per release deed the defendant No. 1 has acquired a portion of the suit schedule property, which is referred below: Sy.No.98/2 measuring 35 guntas, Sy.No.97/1 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas and ?rd out of house property bearing khaneshumari No.66, New No.77, khatha No.78, bounded on: East by: Government acquisition land; West by: House of Husman Sabi; North by: Road; South by: House of Byrasandra Muniswamappa. 14. Based on the plaint averments and the written statement, the Trial Court, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are in the unlawful possession in suit 'C' and 'D' schedule properties? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay damages for their unauthorized occupation of suit 'C' and 'D' schedule properties? 4. Whether the 1st defendant proves that he has acquired a portion of the suit property as contended in para 37 of his written statement? 5. Whether the 1 defendant proves that, the suit is not maintainable as per the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC? 6. 4. Whether the 1st defendant proves that he has acquired a portion of the suit property as contended in para 37 of his written statement? 5. Whether the 1 defendant proves that, the suit is not maintainable as per the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC? 6. Whether the 1 defendant proves that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of declaration, possession and damages as prayed for? 8. What order or decree?" 15. By way of an application under Order 14, Rule 5 (1) & (2), the legal representatives of 1st defendant sought the Trial Court to frame additional issues, as stated supra. 16. The additional issues proposed by the legal representatives of the 1st defendant are nothing but negative issues shifting the burden on the plaintiff", which is impermissible in law. When the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title based on a registered sale deed, it is for him to establish based on oral and documentary evidence to be adduced and produced. When the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff and set up a plea that it is the joint family property, it is for the plaintiff to discharge the burden. The plaint averments, written statement and issue Nos. 1 to 4, are suffice to decide the suit. By way of the present application, the defendants cannot shift the burden on the plaintiff by framing negative issues. 17. The Trial Court, considering the application and objections filed by both the parties, has recorded that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of ownership over 'A' schedule property and also possession of 'C' and 'D' schedule properties, defendants have already filed written statement, after framing the issues, P.W.1 has been examined and at this stage, application is filed for framing the additional issues. The Court has already framed issues on 03.02.2010. The issue No.5 is with regard to Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. The legal representatives of 1st defendant are trying to shift the burden to prove the suit is not maintainable in view of R.A. Nos. 7 and 8 of 2002. But the negative issue cannot be framed. The issues already framed are sufficient to decide the controversy between the parties and therefore, application under Order 14, Rule 5 (1) and (2) of CPC is not maintainable. 7 and 8 of 2002. But the negative issue cannot be framed. The issues already framed are sufficient to decide the controversy between the parties and therefore, application under Order 14, Rule 5 (1) and (2) of CPC is not maintainable. Accordingly, dismissed the application with cost of Rs. 200/-. 18. The Trial Court, considering the averments made in the plaint and the defence taken in the written statement by the defendants, has framed the issues and rejected the application filed under Order 14, Rule 5 (1) and (2) of Code of Civil Procedure. The same is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any case for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, dismissed