JUDGMENT : E.S. INDIRESH, J. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 06 th December, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.2929 of 1988 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property came to be dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property bearing Site No.2 situate at V-A Main Road, formed in Survey No.94 of Saneguruvanahalli Village, Yashwanthapur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring East-West 30 Ft. and North- South 40 Ft. (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property') is bounded with the schedule as follows: Direction Description East Property of Shanmugam West Site No.3 North V-A Main Road South Site No.11, belonging to the plaintiff measuring 30 Ft. East to West and 40 Ft. North to South. 4. It is averred in the plaint that, originally the suit schedule property which is carved out of Survey No.94 of Saneguruvanahalli Village, measuring 4 acre 5 guntas belonged to one Byla Yellamma. The owner of the property had formed layout during the year-1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 1973-Layout Plan') comprising the sites measuring East- West 35 Ft. and North-South 50 Ft. It is further stated in the plaint that, the said Byla Yellamma found that the dimension of Sites were big as per the Layout Plan of 1973 and no prospective buyers were forthcoming to purchase the big Sites and as such, she formed Sites with lesser dimension of 30 x 40 feet as per the new Layout Plan during the year-1974 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 1974-Layout Plan'). It is stated in the plaint that the suit schedule property as per 1973- Layout Plan is situated in 6 th Main Road, however, as per the 1974-Layout Plan, the suit schedule property situated at 5 th 'A' Main Road. Further it is stated that the said Byla Yellamma and her son Subbaiah had executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of Shanmugam and Nagaraj on 22 nd April, 1974 in respect of the suit schedule property. Further it is stated that the said Byla Yellamma and her son Subbaiah had executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of Shanmugam and Nagaraj on 22 nd April, 1974 in respect of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the said Shanmugam and Nagaraj sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff herein as per registered Sale Deed dated 12 th August, 1986, which is in accordance with 1974-Layout Plan. 5. In the plaint, it is further averred that, as per the 1973-Layout Plan, the said Byla Yellamma had sold Site No.2 in favour of one Jayamma as per the registered Sale Deed dated 23 rd January, 1973. Thereafter, the said Jayamma had sold the aforementioned site in favour of one B.H. Gangamma as per registered Sale Deed dated 28 th June, 1982 along with the shed constructed on it. Subsequently, the said B.H. Gangamma had sold the Site No.2 to the defendants as per the registered Sale Deed dated 16 th November, 1987. 6. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, though the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property for valuable consideration, defendants are interfering with the same claiming their right over the suit schedule property as per the registered Sale deed dated 16 th November, 1987 executed by B.H. Gangamma in favour of defendants. It is further stated in the plaint that the husband of the defendant No.1 was the Engineer in Bangalore Development Authority and on account of his interference in the dispute, the plaintiff lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional Police. However, as the matter is of civil in nature, plaintiff filed the instant suit, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule property. 7. After service of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendants admitted that, Byla Yellamma was the owner of land bearing Survey No.94 measuring 4 acre 5 guntas of Saneguruvanahalli Village, and the said Byla Yellamma formed 22 Sites with a dimension of 35 x 50 Ft. as per 1972-Layout Plan. The defendants admitted that, Byla Yellamma was the owner of land bearing Survey No.94 measuring 4 acre 5 guntas of Saneguruvanahalli Village, and the said Byla Yellamma formed 22 Sites with a dimension of 35 x 50 Ft. as per 1972-Layout Plan. It is further stated in the written statement that the Site No.2 is formed as per the layout plan and the said Byla Yellama sold Site No.2 in favour of Jayamma as per the registered Sale Deed dated 23 rd January, 1973 and the said Jayamma constructed a shed measuring 15 x 10 Ft. and thereafter, the said Jayamma sold the Site No.2 in favour of one Smt. B.H. Gangamma as per the registered Sale Deed dated 28 th June, 1982 along with the shed constructed on it. Subsequently, the said B.H. Gangamma sold the property in question to the defendants as per the registered Sale Deed dated 16 th November, 1987 and defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same and accordingly, denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 8. It is further contended by the defendants that the Layout formed by Byla Yellamma was approved by the City Improvement Trust Board, by its resolution No.1668 dated 24 th October, 1973 and therefore, as the Layout has been formed and approved by the competent Authority, defendants denied the claim made by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further stated in the written statement that the title of the plaintiff over Site No.11 of the Layout is the subject matter in Original Suit No.1089 of 1982 before the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru and the plaintiff has constructed the house in Site No.11. Accordingly, defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. 9. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: "(1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property as claimed by her? (2) Whether she was in juridical possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit? (3) Whether the suit is not properly valued? (4) Whether the court fee paid is insufficient? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and injunction sought? (6) To what reliefs are the parties entitled?" 10. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff examined her husband Sri. (3) Whether the suit is not properly valued? (4) Whether the court fee paid is insufficient? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and injunction sought? (6) To what reliefs are the parties entitled?" 10. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff examined her husband Sri. Basavarajaiah as PW1 and marked 58 documents as Exhibits P1 to P58. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced by defendants. 11. The Trial Court,. after considering material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 06 th December, 2013, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration and injunction. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred this appeal. 12. Heard Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, appearing for the appellant. Respondents were served and they chose to remain absent. 13. Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the land bearing Survey No.94 of Saneguruvanahalli to an extent of 4 acre 5 guntas originally belonged to Byla Yellamma, which is not disputed by the defendants in their written statement and after formation of layout in the said land as per the 1974-Layout Plan, the said Byla Yellamma sold the Site No.2 in favour of Shanmugam and his brother Nagaraj (vendor of the plaintiff) as per registered Sale Deed dated 22 nd April, 1974 (Exhibit P2). 14. Nextly, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the plaintiff had put-up construction over the suit schedule property and same has been tenanted and in this regard, the plaintiff produced Electricity Bills and such other documents to establish her possession over the suit schedule property as per Exhibits P11 to P43. Learned counsel Sri. Nitish K.N., further submits that, Saneguruvanahalli Gram Panchayat had given no objection certificate for obtaining Electricity and Water connection for the suit schedule property as per Exhibit P10, which makes it clear that the tile and possession of the suit schedule property is in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Trial Court committed an error in appreciating the Sale Deeds marked at Exhibits P47 to P49 wherein, the sites have been formed as per the 1974- Layout Plan (Exhibit P5) and that apart, the boundaries and measurement of the respective Sale Deeds tallies with the 1974-Layout Plan as per Exhibit P5. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Site No.2 formed as per 1973-Layout Plan (Exhibit P4) and Site No.2 formed as per 1974-Layout Plan (Exhibit P5) are different, however, the same has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and as such, miscarriage of justice has been made to the plaintiff. Accordingly, he sought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 15. Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by referring to IAs.1 and 2 of 2024 filed under XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to production of copy of Sale Deed dated 28 th June, 1982 said to have been executed by Smt. Jayamma in favour of B.H. Gangamma (Vendor of the defendants) and Sale Deed dated 14 th September, 1981 said to have been executed by one Smt. V. Lalithamma in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the Site No.11 wherein, the schedule to the Site No.11 indicate that the Site No.2 is towards the North of Site No.11 contended that the aforementioned registered Sale Deeds are public documents and same have to be accepted. 16. Respondents served and they chose to remain absent. 17. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Trial Court and perused the original records. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for appellant, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: 1) Whether the finding recorded by Trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 2 requires interference in this appeal? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property ? 3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference in this appeal? 18. It is the case of the plaintiff that, originally the land bearing Survey No.94 of Saneguruvanahalli Village to an extent of 4 acre 5 guntas belonged to one Byla Yellamma and she has formed layout as per the 1973-Layout Plan (Exhibit P4). 3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference in this appeal? 18. It is the case of the plaintiff that, originally the land bearing Survey No.94 of Saneguruvanahalli Village to an extent of 4 acre 5 guntas belonged to one Byla Yellamma and she has formed layout as per the 1973-Layout Plan (Exhibit P4). As per the 1973-Layout Plan, Site No.2 was purchased by one Jaymma from Byla Yellamma as per Sale Deed dated 23 rd January, 1973 (Exhibit P6) and boundaries to same reads as under: Direction Boundary East Site No.1 West Road North Road South Site No.9 19. It is also stated that the said Jayamma sold the Site No.2 as per 1973-Layout Plan in favour of B.H. Gangamama under the registered Sale Deed dated 28 th June, 1982 and in turn the defendants purchased the same as per registered Sale deed dated 16 th November, 1987 (Exhibit P50). The schedule to Exhibit P50 reads as Under: 20. On careful consideration of the schedule in the Sale Deed dated 16 th November, 1987 (Exhibit P50) registered in favour of the defendants has to be tallied with the boundaries of the suit schedule property. In this regard, it is the case of the plaintiff that the original owner Byla Yellamma was not able to sell the majority of the sites as per the 1973-Layout Plan and as such, new layout plan was formed during the year-1974 as per Exhibit P5. As per the 1974-Layout Plan (Exhibit P5), the said Byla Yellamma sold Site Nos.1 and 2 in favour of Shanmugama and his brother Nagaraj as per registered Sale Deed dated 22 nd April, 1974 (Exhibit P2). The boundaries of the Site No.1 and Site No.2 reads as Under: Direction Description East Land of Shankar Mutt West Site No.3 North 30 Feet Road South Site Nos. 12 and 11 21. The said Shanmugam and his brother Nagaraj had retained Site No.1, however, sold Site No.2 in favour of the plaintiff as per the registered Sale Deed dated 12 th August, 1986 (Exhibit P3). The boundaries to schedule property reads as under: Direction Description East by Site No.1 belonging to vendor in same survey number West by Site No.3 in same survey number North by Road South by Site No.11 belonging to purchaser in the same survey number measuring East-West 30 Ft. and North-South 40 Ft. The boundaries to schedule property reads as under: Direction Description East by Site No.1 belonging to vendor in same survey number West by Site No.3 in same survey number North by Road South by Site No.11 belonging to purchaser in the same survey number measuring East-West 30 Ft. and North-South 40 Ft. 22. In order to appreciate as to the genuineness of the boundaries in the registered Sale Deed dated 12 th August, 1986 (Exhibit P3) executed in favour of the plaintiff, it is relevant to appreciate the boundaries of the Sale Deed executed in accordance with 1974-Layout Plan concerning Site Nos.4, 6 and 9 as per Exhibit P47 to P49. In the backdrop of the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit P47 and P48, the same has to be verified as per the boundaries mentioned in the registered Sale Deed dated 28 th June, 1982 as produced by the appellant as additional Evidence in application IA.1 of 2024. In the said Sale Deed dated 28 th June, 1982, towards the western boundary it is stated as Insofar as the measurement is concerned it is stated as follows: 23. Having appreciated the boundaries of adjacent site numbers and on careful consideration of finding recorded by the Trial Court, I am of the view that the Trial Court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the said Byla Yellama having sold the site No.2 in favour of Smt. Jaymma as per registered Sale Deed dated 23 rd January, 1973 has no legal right to sell the very same site in favour of Shanmugam and Nagaraj as per the registered Sale deed dated 22 nd April, 1974. It is pertinent to mention here that the boundaries mentioned in the registered Sale deed executed in favour of Jayamma and Shanmugam are different and same has caused miscarriage of justice to the plaintiff while considering the boundaries of the adjacent site in respect of the subject matter of the suit is concerned. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the Trial Court requires interference in this appeal. 24. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Trial Court has declined to grant relief of declaration in favour of plaintiff on the ground that the registration of the Sale Deed dated 12 th August, 1986 (Exhibit P3) was held at Madras and same was contrary to Section 30 of the Registration Act, 1908. 24. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Trial Court has declined to grant relief of declaration in favour of plaintiff on the ground that the registration of the Sale Deed dated 12 th August, 1986 (Exhibit P3) was held at Madras and same was contrary to Section 30 of the Registration Act, 1908. In this regard, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Trial Court at paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment and decree. On careful consideration of the registered Sale Deed dated 12 th August, 1986 (Exhibit P3), it is expedient to extract Section 30 of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as under: "30. Registration by Registrars in certain cases .—(1) Any Registrar may in his discretion receive and register any document which might be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him." (2) The Registrar of a district in which a Presidency-town is included and the Registrar of the Delhi District [* * *] may receive and register any document referred to in section 28 without regard to the situation in any part of India of the property to which the document relates." 25. On careful perusal of language employed under Section 30(2) of the Registration Act, the same would indicate that the Registrar of a district containing a Presidency-town (now extended to Delhi and other major cities) is allowed to register documents as per Section 28 in respect of immovable property located anywhere in India. On careful consideration of the aforementioned provision, I am of the view that the finding record by the Trial Court at paragraph 13 requires interference in this appeal. 26. Nextly, while considering the registered Sale Deed dated 12 th August, 1986 (Exhibit P3), the Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the signature of the purchaser (plaintiff) is not found. The said finding recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. PUTTASWAMY vs. THIMMAMMA AND OTHER made in Civil appeal No.3975 of 2010 decided on 24 th January, 2020 wherein, the paragraph 8 reads as under: "8. The said finding recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. PUTTASWAMY vs. THIMMAMMA AND OTHER made in Civil appeal No.3975 of 2010 decided on 24 th January, 2020 wherein, the paragraph 8 reads as under: "8. We find from the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the respective parties had led evidence of execution and subsequent registration of the deeds but the first two courts did not reject the contention of the second set of defendants that there was no execution by Madegowda (since deceased) of the deed of sale of Manchegowda (since deceased). The case has been decided in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the buyer was not present at the time of registration of sale deed. There is evidence to the effect that the second defendant (Manchegowda) had not come to the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed. But as per law as it stood at the material point of time, there was no necessity of present of purchaser at the Registration Office during the registration of sale deed. The deed was executed by Madegowda and that aspect has not been disputed. The deed in question does not fall within Sections 31, 88 and 89 of the Registration Act. Section 32 of the said Act does not require presence of both parties to a deed of sale when the same is presented for registration. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The present appeal is accordingly, dismissed." 27. On careful consideration of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. PUTTASWAMY (supra), the signature of the purchaser i.e., plaintiff in the registered Sale deed is an option and not mandatory unless the said registered Sale deed is properly presented before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar with due execution of the registered Sale Deed by the vendor. In that view of the matter, the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is contrary to boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deeds produced at Exhibit P47 to 49, so also, the title of the plaintiff as per the registered Sale deed 22 nd April, 1974 (Exhibit P2) and the registered Sale Deed dated 12 th August, 1986 (Exhibit P3), in which the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from her vendors Shanmugam and Nagaraj. 28. It is also pertinent to mention here that , though he defendants filed written statement, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to support their case and on the contrary, in order to establish the possession in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff produced 33 numbers Electricity Bills at Exhibits P11 to P43. It is evident from the aforementioned documents that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, points for consideration in this appeal referred to above favours the appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, having re-appreciated the entire material on record, I am of the view that the Trial Court committed an error in appreciating the documents on record in a right perspective. 29. It is also to be noted that, as the appellant herein filed IAs.1 and 2 of 2024 for production of registered Sale Deeds to verify the boundaries of neighboring sites and those Sale Deeds are public documents, applications deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, IAs.1 and 2 of 2024 are allowed. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Regular First Appeal allowed; ii) Judgment and decree dated 06 th December, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.2929 of 1988 on the file of XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set-aside; iii) The suit filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.2929 of 1988 is hereby decreed, holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property; consequently, defendants are permanently restrained from interfering with the suit schedule property.