JUDGMENT : This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 passed in O.S.No.556/2014 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to their status before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 4. The factual matrix of the case are as under: The plaintiff stated that she is the absolute owner in possession of schedule property bearing No.329, 2nd Stage Layout (EWS), BTM, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore measuring East to West : 5.50+5.80/2 Meter and North to South 9.00 meter in total 50.85 sq.meters bounded on East and South by Road, West by Site No.302, North by Site No.328. The plaintiff further states that the schedule property was allotted to her by BDA as compensation in lieu of the dispossession of the huts of 166 persons near water tank, Kumara Part West, Bangalore, out of which 144 persons have been selected. Accordingly, the BDA has allotted sites to the beneficiaries, of whom, plaintiff is one of such allottees. The defendant herein executed registered leasecumsale agreement dated 30.07.2008 in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.P1. The plaintiff has produced allotment letter Ex.P.2 issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P3 is encumbrance certificate issued by the Competent Authority in respect of the schedule property. Pursuant to the registered lease-cum-sale agreement dated 30.07.2008, the plaintiff has secured katha in her favour issued by the BBMP vide Ex.P4. Ex.P5 is the Katha extract issued by the BBMP in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, the plaintiff has paid the tax insofar as the schedule property is concerned. The plaintiff has also produced the photographs to establish the possession of the schedule property standing in her name. Accordingly, the case of the plaintiff is that since the defendant is interfering with the suit schedule property and as such, she has filed O.S.No.556/2014 before the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru for permanent injunction against the defendant and their agents from interfering with the suit schedule property. 5. Accordingly, the case of the plaintiff is that since the defendant is interfering with the suit schedule property and as such, she has filed O.S.No.556/2014 before the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru for permanent injunction against the defendant and their agents from interfering with the suit schedule property. 5. Suit summons issued by the trial Court was served on the defendant and the defendant has entered appearance through the learned counsel, however, the defendant has not filed written statement countering the averments made in the plaint. 6. The plaintiff in order to prove the suit upon the assertions made in the pleadings was examined as PW1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P9. Since the defendant has not filed written statement and as such, the trial court formulated the following points for consideration: 1) Whether plaintiff proves her possession over the schedule property on the date of the institution of the suit and proved interference of the defendant to seek permanent injunction against defendant as prayed? 2) What order? 7. Having considered the documents on record and pleadings in the suit, the trial Court has affirmed the fact that the plaintiff has proved her possession in respect of suit schedule property as on the date of institution of suit, interalia proved interference of the defendant against her peaceful possession. Having considered the entire documents on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 has decreed the suit with a direction to the defendant not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property except otherwise by due process of law. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 passed in O.S.No.556/2014, the appellant-defendant has filed the instant appeal on the ground that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed certain materials before the trial Court. The appellant has further submitted that the said schedule site which was allotted in favour of appellant was subsequently cancelled by registered Cancellation deed dated 18.08.2008 and she has suppressed the aforesaid fact before the trial Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 passed by the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 passed by the trial Court. 9. Notice issued by this Court in the appeal is served on the respondent and respondent has not chosen to represent in this appeal. 10. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that because of the execution of the registered cancellation deed dated 18.08.2008, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the property and as such, the finding recorded by the trial Court requires to be interfered with by this Court. The appellant further submits that the appellant has filed applicationI.A.I/2016 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional documents. This Court, by order dated 10.01.2019 has ordered that the same will be considered at the time of final hearing. Accordingly, I.A.I/2016 filed by the appellant was considered. Insofar as the submission made therein in respect of registered cancellation deed dated 18.08.2008 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant further submits that pursuant to the cancellation of suit schedule property, the suit schedule property was allotted in favour of one Jagadish in public auction on 05.12.2014. Copy of the same is produced as document No.4 to the application. Accordingly, appellant sought to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 passed in O.S.No.556/2014 passed by the trial Court. 11. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and documents on record, the undisputed facts of the case is that the plaintiff-respondent herein is a beneficiary and has been allotted with the suit schedule property by entering into a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 30.07.2008 by the defendant and pursuant to the same, appellant herein has issued allotment letterEx.P2 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein. As such, plaintiff-respondent was paying taxes to the competent authority as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. In view of the same, plaintiff has proved that she is in occupation of suit schedule property as on the date of suit. In the instant case, though the summons was served on the defendant and having been represented through a learned counsel, the defendant failed to file the written statement countering the averments made in the plaint. Despite the same, defendant has not adduced any evidence before the trial Court for the reasons best known to them. In the instant case, though the summons was served on the defendant and having been represented through a learned counsel, the defendant failed to file the written statement countering the averments made in the plaint. Despite the same, defendant has not adduced any evidence before the trial Court for the reasons best known to them. In view of the same, the finding recorded by the trial court that the plaintiff has proved her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit cannot be faulted with and same is fortified by a well reasoned order by the trial Court. On reappreciation of evidence by this Court in the present appeal, interference with regard to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not arise and reappreciating the evidence to arrive at different conclusion one which arrived by the trial Court does not call for in the instant appeal. As regards, the contention raised by the appellant-defendant that the appellant has cancelled the registered lease-cum-sale agreement dated 30.07.2008 made in favour of the plaintiff by registered cancellation deed dated 18.08.2008 is concerned, on perusal of I.A.I/2016 appellant-defendant has failed to produce any documents before this Court much less, the notice issued by defendant to the plaintiff before registration of cancellation deed dated 18.08.2008. On perusal of the same, it would also clearly indicate that it is only a unilaterally executed cancellation document by BDA defendant. In view of the same, the said contention raised by the appellant herein is without any basis and the findings recorded by trial court with regard to possession of suit schedule property is based on documents produced before it. 12. In order to fortify my conclusion, referring to the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karpagathachi and others Vs Nagarathinathachi reported in AIR 1965 SC 1752 , is necessary, wherein it has been observed that a party could not be allowed to raise a new contention for the first time in appeal. In order to fortify my conclusion, referring to the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karpagathachi and others Vs Nagarathinathachi reported in AIR 1965 SC 1752 , is necessary, wherein it has been observed that a party could not be allowed to raise a new contention for the first time in appeal. In the instant case, appellant-defendant has brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant herein has cancelled the allotment and registration of the lease cum sale agreement made in favour of plaintiff by registered cancellation deed 18.08.2008 and the said fact does not find place in the impugned judgment and decree as the appellant / defendant has not filed written statement nor adduced evidence before the trial Court. In view of the same, this Court cannot find fault with the reasons assigned by the trial Court while arriving at decreeing in the suit. 13. It is further stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LRs V/s M/s.Shoba Venkat Rao reported in AIR 1989 SC 2097 has held that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. In the instant matter, admittedly even according to the appellantdefendant has admitted that the plaintiff respondent is in possession of the property as per the allotment letter and lease-cum-sale agreementExP1, and the appellant-defendant submits that prior to execution of cancellation deed dated 18.08.2008, the appellant has not issued any notice to the plaintiff-respondent. In view of the same, the submission made by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that, plaintiff is not lawful possession of the property is without any basis. 14. In view of the same, the submission made by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that, plaintiff is not lawful possession of the property is without any basis. 14. In the case of Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & others V/s Tehmtan Irani and others reported in AIR 2014 SC 2326 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court by considering the scope of Section 96 of CPC has taken note of subsequent events in furtherance of litigation and to mould the relief in the suit, at para 34 has held as under: However, in the interest of justice, a court including a court of appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not precluded from taking note of developments subsequent to the commencement of the litigation, when such events have a direct bearing on the relief claimed by a party or one the entire purpose of the suit the Courts taking note of the same should mould the relief accordingly. This rule is one of ancient vintage adopted by the Supreme Court of America in Patterson vs. State of Alabama followed in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul vs Keshwar Lal Choudhury. The aforementioned cases were recognized by this Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor and General Traders wherein he stated that: “…If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice — subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial court. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice — subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.” The abovementioned principle has been recognized in a catena of decisions. This Court by placing reliance on the Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Case (supra), held in Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram that: “6. The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a ‘cautious cognizance’ of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief.” This was further followed in Lekh Raj vs. Muni Lal & Ors. This Court in Sheshambal (dead) through LRs vs. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building & Ors.[16] while discussing the issue of taking cognizance of subsequent events held that: “19. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta case where the Court declared that although the ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit yet the court has power to mould the relief in case the following three conditions are satisfied: (SCC p. 263, para 11) “11. … (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise.” 15. In the instant case, the appellant has produced certain documents to establish the fact that the plaintiff respondent is not a owner of the property as appellant has executed the cancellation deed dated 18.08.2008. Having considered the said document, this Court is of the opinion that by taking note of such subsequent events over changed circumstances would shorten the litigation and to enable the justice being done to the parties, directed the appellant herein to take action in accordance with law by issuing notice to the respondent plaintiff as stated above. 16. Having noticed the fact that BDA having executed cancellation deed dated 18.08.2008 and pursuant to same, suit schedule property is allotted in favour of one Jagadish by virtue of public auction and also having executed sale deed in favour of Jagadish, I am of the considered opinion that in the ends of justice except reserving liberty to defendant BDA to take further action in the matter with due process of law, the contention raised by the learned counsel for appellant as stated above is devoid of merits insofar as the findings recorded by the trial Court in the suit and are liable to be rejected, accordingly rejected. Hence the following: ORDER 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. Judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 passed in O.S.No.556/2014 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru is confirmed. No order as to costs.