ORDER : V Srishananda, J. Heard Sri.Angad kamath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents. 2. Defendant No.9 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) vide I.A.No.4. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit in O.S.No.1495/2016 came to be filed by respondent No.1 in respect of following properties and in respect of following relief: SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the land situated in the survey No.3/3B situated at Ganakallu village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, an extent of about 1 acre 1 guntas and 4 guntas of kharab in total 1 acre 5 guntas out of which 9 guntas of land and the same is bounded on the: Direction Description East Road West Land belongs to C.S. Bhat North Land belongs to V. Suresh Hegde South Road PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass the judgment and decree that: 1. Declare that the registered sale deed dated 06.05.2016 between the defendant No.1 to 8, represented by the defendant No.9 and defendant No.9 is concocted created, bogus, fraudulent deed and the same is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Consequential reliefs: 2. Declare that, the registered sale agreement dated 14.08.2014 between the defendant Nos.1 to 8, represented by the defendant No.9 and defendant No.9 is concocted created, bogus, fraudulent deed and the same is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. 3. Declare that, the registered power of Attorny dated 13.02.2012 between the defendant No.1 to 8 and defendant No.9 is concocted created, bogus, fraudulent deed and the same is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. 4. Grant permanent injunction against the defendant No.9 restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property without due process of law. 5. Award the costs of this litigation and 6. 4. Grant permanent injunction against the defendant No.9 restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property without due process of law. 5. Award the costs of this litigation and 6. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to pass under the circumstances of this suit to meet the ends of justice and equity.” 3.2. Plaintiff contended that agriculture dry land (suit property) was the ancestral property belonging to Gali Choodaiah, son of Galirappa, Muni Hanumaya, son of Gali Choodaiah, Nagaraj, son of Gali Choodaiah, Choodaiah, son of Venkatalakshmamma, Hanumanthu and Parvathi. 3.3. They were the absolute owners of the suit property and for the legal necessity, they sold the property in favour of Sheela Shetty by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.11.1994. Thereafter, Sheela Shetty mutated the revenue entries in her name and for her legal necessity, she sold the property to Sunitha by registered sale deed dated 03.04.1995. 3.4. Plaintiff submits that Sunitha after getting the mutation of the revenue entries, enjoyed the suit property, thereafter, sold the same in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration by way of a registered sale deed dated 01.09.1995. 3.5. Plaintiff further contented that based on the registered sale deed dated 01.09.1995, she noticed that in respect of Sy.No.3/3B of Ganakallu Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter ‘BDA’ for short) by issuing a preliminary notification on 01.12.2000 and thereafter, final notification came to be issued on 23.08.2000 for the formation of Banashankari VI stage and acquisition notification was challenged by T.V.Narayana Murthy, who is an adjacent land owner of the suit property claiming right, title and interest and possession over 9 guntas of the land in Sy.No.3/3B. 3.6. Against the acquisition, there was a challenge in W.P.No.9068/2006 against the BDA and said writ petition was tagged with a bunch of other writ petitions and Coordinate Bench of this Court by final order dated 26.02.2010, disposed of all those writ petitions and noted that BDA had decided to give up the acquisition of the land and collect betterment charges in respect of the properties involved in the said acquisition notice. 3.7. 3.7. Plaintiff further contended that as per the intimation letter dated 28.06.2004 by the BDA, plaintiff paid betterment charges to the account of the BDA in Indian Overseas Bank, Kumara Park Branch, Bengaluru. 3.8. Plaintiff further contented that defendant No.9 being an estate agent, having an eye on the suit property, noted that by virtue of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, set up defendant Nos.1 to 8 as the landowners and based on the concocted documents, entered into an agreement with defendant Nos.1 to 8 and got sold the suit property in his name. 3.9. Plaintiff further contended that defendant No. 9 does not possess any right, title or interest over the suit property. Therefore, the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 did not transfer any right, title or interest in the name of defendant No.9 and therefore, sought for the plaint relief. 4. Defendant No.9 entered appearance and filed written statement and also necessary documents to establish the right, title and interest in defendant Nos.1 to 8 and also placed on record the documents with regard to the plaint in O.S.No.9897/2006 and the decree passed thereon, wherein the plaintiff is a party-defendant who was placed ex-parte. 5. Learned Trial Judge has raised necessary issues and trial has commenced and it is submitted that recording of plaintiff's evidence is completed. 6. Thereafter, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC came to be filed by defendant No. 9 supported by affidavit. 7. In the affidavit, it has been contained in paragraph Nos.4 to 9 as under: 4. “I submit that a bare perusal of the prayers sought for by the plaintiff clearly establishes that the suit filed by the plaintiff itself not maintainable because the plaintiff has not sought for any positive relief of declaration to declare herself as the owner of the plaint schedule property bearing Sy.No.3/3B situated at Ganakallu Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 9 guntas out of 1 acre 5 guntas. 5. It is submitted that there four essential ingredients for a declaratory Suit. 5. It is submitted that there four essential ingredients for a declaratory Suit. They are that the plaintiff at the time of suit was entitled to any legal character or any right to any Property and that the defendant had denied or was planning or interested in denying the rights of the plaintiff and that the declaration asked for should be the same as the declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a right and that the plaintiff was not in a position to claim a further relief than a mere declaration of his rights which have been denied by the defendant. It is submitted that none of the above said ingredients are found in the plaint of the above suit. 6. It is submitted that under the Specific Relief Act, Section 34 clearly states that the suit should be filed to declare her title in respect of suit schedule property and proviso to the said Section 34 makes it clear that if the plaintiff does not seek for declaration of her title, then the Court also cannot grant such a relief to the plaintiff. 7. It is submitted that since admittedly the plaintiff has not sought for any positive relief i.e., the plaintiff has not sought for any declaration of her right, title or interest in the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.3/3B situaed at Ganakallu Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring9 guntas out of 1 acre 5 guntas and the plaintiff has sought only for dclaration that the registered documents dated 6.5.2016, 14.8.2014 and 13.2.2012 are not binding on the plaintiff. These reliefs are not positive reliefs and therefore the suit itself filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 8. It is further submitted that the defendant has filed written statement before this Hon'ble Court on 15.3.2018 denying the title of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not amended her prayer seeking for declaration of her title to the suit schedule properties. Hence, the same is also barred by limitation. In view of the fact that the suit itself is not maintainable since the plaintiff has not sought for any declaration of her title as required under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaint has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a & d) of CPC. Hence, the same is also barred by limitation. In view of the fact that the suit itself is not maintainable since the plaintiff has not sought for any declaration of her title as required under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaint has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a & d) of CPC. If any person is seeking for consequential injunction without seeking for any declaration of title to which the Plaintiff is entitled so, then the suit will not be maintainable and will not be laid down within its ambit. In the case of P. Buchi Reddy and Others v. Anathula Sudhakar, it was held that the plaintiffs suit for a mere injunction without seeking a declaration of the title is not maintainable. 9. In view of the above circumstances, the suit being not maintainable and the continuation of the proceeds further in the above case would be an abuse of process of law and wastage of public money and precious time of the Court and the defendant will be suffered if the application is allowed, no loss, injury or hardship would be caused to the plaintiff since admittedly the plaintiff has vomited to seek for relief of declaration of her title to the suit schedule properties. On the other hand, great loss, injury or hardship would be caused to the defendant if the application is not allowed.” 8. Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing written objections. 9. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge by the impugned order, dismissed the application. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, it is defendant No.9 who has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds: It is submitted that the Impugned Order passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court is without application of mind, opposed to settled principles of law, opposed to the facts and circumstances of the above case. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The Petitioner in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) has specifically contented that the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is utterly barred by the law of limitation. The Hon'ble Trial Court without even considering the averments enumerated in the affidavit accompanying the application has proceed to pass the impugned order in a mechanical manner. The Hon'ble Trial Court without even considering the averments enumerated in the affidavit accompanying the application has proceed to pass the impugned order in a mechanical manner. The principal contention raised by the Petitioner was that the suit discloses no cause of action in law. The Respondent-Plaintiff has sought only declarations that the General Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2012, the Sale Agreement dated 14.08.2014, and the Sale Deed dated 06.05.2016 are concocted, fraudulent, null and void and not binding upon her. However, she has not sought a declaration of her own title, despite her alleged ownership being based on the sale deed dated 01.09.1995 that was categorically denied in the Written Statement filed by the Petitioner in 2018. The bar under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is therefore squarely attracted: when the Plaintiff's title is in dispute or under cloud, a suit confined merely to declarations that the defendants' documents are not binding is not maintainable unless accompanied by a declaration of her own title. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy [ (2008) 4 SCC 594 ] has held that whenever the Plaintiff's title is denied or clouded, he must seek declaration of his title. Failure to do so renders the suit not maintainable. The Trial Court, instead of applying this settled principle, erroneously deferred consideration of maintainability to trial, thereby defeating the mandatory bar under Section 34. The learned Trial Judge gravely erred in overlooking the bar contained in the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which stipulates that no Court shall make any declaration where the Plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration, omits to do The plaint is a classic example of clever drafting engineered to create an illusion of cause of action. While the Plaintiff asserts ownership on the basis of a Sale Deed dated 01.09.1995, she has confined her prayers to seeking declarations that the General Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2012, the Sale Agreement dated 14.08.2014, and the Sale Deed dated 06.05.2016 executed in favour of the Petitioner are concocted, fraudulent, null and void and not binding on her, all the while deliberately omitting the essential relief of declaration of her own title. Further, she has sought to project the Sale Deed dated 06.05.2016 in favour of Defendant No.9 as the sole cause of action, while consciously disregarding the earlier transactions of 13.02.2012 and 14.08.2014, which in law represent the point of first accrual of her alleged cause of action. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [ (1977) 4 SCC 467 ] and I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ (1998) 2 SCC 70 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that clever drafting which creates an illusion of cause of action must be nipped in the bud. The Trial Court, in overlooking this plea, failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly and thereby erred in rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation. The Plaintiff has sought declarations that the General Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2012, the Sale Agreement dated 14.08.2014, and the Sale Deed dated 06.05.2016 executed in favour of the Petitioner are concocted, fraudulent, null and void and not binding on her, yet the suit came to be instituted only in the year 2016. Under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for seeking such declarations runs for three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. In the present case, the right to sue, if any, first arose in 2012 with the execution of the GPA, or at the latest in 2014 with the Sale Agreement, and the Plaintiff cannot revive limitation by portraying the Sale Deed dated 06.05.2016 as the starting point. The "first accrual" was in the year 2012, with the execution of the GPA, which formed the foundation for subsequent acts, or at the latest in 2014 when the Sale Agreement was executed. By portraying the execution of the Sale Deed dated 06.05.2016 as the cause of action, the Plaintiff sought to overcome limitation. However, it is settled law (Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [ (2011) 9 SCC 126 ]; State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh [111991 AIR 2219]; Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, AIR 2019 SC 1430 ) that successive violations do not create fresh causes of action beyond the first. Thus, the plaint itself reveals that the suit is beyond limitation, and rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) was mandatory. Thus, the plaint itself reveals that the suit is beyond limitation, and rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) was mandatory. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC uses the word "shall" and imposes a duty upon the Court to reject a plaint which does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law. The provision is mandatory, as repeatedly held in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [ (2003) 1 SCC 557 ]. The Trial Court's observation that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law ignores the above binding precedents and amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The present suit is nothing but an abuse of process. It seeks to unsettle the Petitioner's valid title through frivolous and defective pleadings, while deliberately avoiding the essential relief of declaration of ownership. It is settled law that meaningless litigation bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to waste judicial time. By allowing the suit to continue, the Trial Court has facilitated precisely such abuse. The Hon'ble Trial Court ought to have seen that the mere reading of the Plaint averments and the averments in the document relied upon by the Plaintiffs, does not disclose the real cause of action for the suit and the cause of action pleaded for filing the suit will not sustain on any merits. The Hon'ble Trial Court has committed serious irregularity in rejecting the IA No.4 when the suit filed by the Plaintiff is barred by law and continuation of the suit amounts to abuse of the due process of law. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that suit of the plaintiff is barred on following grounds and same has not been considered by the learned Trial Judge in the proper perspective: Suit is not having any cause of action in view of the decreeing of the suit in O.S.No.9897/2006. Plaint prayer cannot be granted without seeking the declaration of the title on the suit property. 12. He would further contend that learned Trial Judge has misunderstood the scope of the suit in mentioning that the suit is one for partition whereas the suit is for declaration. 13. Plaint prayer cannot be granted without seeking the declaration of the title on the suit property. 12. He would further contend that learned Trial Judge has misunderstood the scope of the suit in mentioning that the suit is one for partition whereas the suit is for declaration. 13. He also invited the attention of the Court to paragraph No.31 of the impugned order wherein the learned Trial Judge has stated that the issue of the improper prayer will be decided only after the full-fledged trial is incorrect as a 10 year old suit cannot be allowed to continue further. 14. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, no doubt, the plaintiff is a party-defendant in O.S.No.9897/2006 and she was placed ex-parte in the said suit and a decree came to be passed. 16. While considering the application for rejection of the plaint, it is settled principles of law that the allegations made in the plaint and documents thereon alone to be considered and not the defence. 17. In the case on hand, plaintiff has made out a case for grant of declaratory relief stating that she being the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed, defendant No.9 clandestinely got a sale deed executed in his favour. 18. Whether at all, the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 in favour of defendant No.9 is a valid sale deed or not cannot be decided while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 19. Plaintiff has made out a case having regard to the registered sale deed and also placing on record the registered sale deeds of her vendor and vendor’s vendor. Trial has already commenced and plaintiff's evidence is completed. 20. At the most, what is the effect of the decree that is passed in O.S.No.9897/2006 on to the merits of the matter is a question to be decided in the trial by the learned Trial Judge. 21. Therefore, improper prayer in not asking for declaration as to the title of the suit property by the plaintiff would not be a ground to reject the plaint that too when trial has commenced. 22. 21. Therefore, improper prayer in not asking for declaration as to the title of the suit property by the plaintiff would not be a ground to reject the plaint that too when trial has commenced. 22. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court may be that while narrating the reasons, learned Trial Judge has observed that the suit is one for partition but the plaint relief is very clear that it is for declaration. Such minute mistakes cannot be the ground to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 23. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed