JUDGMENT : Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2019 in O.S. No.2378/2013 on the file of XXXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. 2. In terms of the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff's suit for bare injunction is decreed. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has established his possession over the property. 3. The defendants aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree are before this Court. 4. The suit property is described as under:- "All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing No.42, present Khata No.35/2/42 formed in the land bearing Survey No.35/2, situated at Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yeswanthpura Hobli, Bangalore north taluk, Measuring East to West 40 feet North to South 30 feet Total Area 1,200 square feet Bounded East by Road West Site No.52 North Site No.41 South Site No.43 5. The suit property was originally part of survey No.35/2 and it was converted for non-agricultural residential use vide conversion order dated 24.03.2003. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from defendant No.1. who is said to be daughter of late Ramappa Kumar. 6. The plaintiff claims that Ramappa Kumar was the original owner of the property and after his demise his daughter acquired right over the property. The plaintiff claims title and possession based on the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2008. Same is marked at Exhibit-P1. The plaintiff has produced the Khata register, affidavit and encumbrance certificate to assert his possession over the property. 7. The plaintiff alleged that defendants No.1 and 2 do not have any right over the property and defendant No.2 is claiming title and possession based on the registered sale deed said to have been executed by the power of attorney holder of Ramappa Kumar, the father of defendant No.1. 8. Defendant No.2 to substantiate her claim for possession and title over the property has produced Exhibit-D3, the registered sale deed dated 03.05.2002 executed by the power of attorney holder of Ramappa Kumar and in addition has also produced the Exhibit-D23, the general power of attorney dated 05.07.1993. 9. The Trial Court has considered the contentions based on the evidence placed before the Court. The Trial Court has noticed that the boundaries shown in the general power of attorney marked at Exhibit-D23 do not tally with the boundaries shown in the sale deed and the boundaries shown in the plaint. 9. The Trial Court has considered the contentions based on the evidence placed before the Court. The Trial Court has noticed that the boundaries shown in the general power of attorney marked at Exhibit-D23 do not tally with the boundaries shown in the sale deed and the boundaries shown in the plaint. 10. The Trial Court has also noticed that the property was not converted for non-agricultural use in the year 2002 when defendant No.2 claimed to have purchased the property from defendant No.1 based on the power of attorney of 1993. It is noticed that the conversion for non-agricultural residential use happened in the year 2003. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has disbelieved the defendants' contention that defendant No.2 is in possession of the property. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for declaration of title and bare injunction, suit is not permissible given the fact that there is a cloud over the plaintiff's title and property moreso in a situation where there are two registered sale deeds, one in favour of the plaintiff and one in favour of defendant No.2. 12. It is his further submission that the layout plan is not produced by the plaintiff, as such the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction. 13. It is also urged that defendant No.1 is not the daughter of the late Ramappa Kumar. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ respondent would urge that defendant No.1 has admitted her status as daughter of Ramappa Kumar. It is not in dispute that Ramappa Kumar was the owner of the property. Plaintiff has alleged that defendant No.1 has executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 15. Defendant No.1 has not disputed the execution of the sale deed by leading evidence though she has taken a contention in a statement that she has not executed the sale deed. 16. The description of the property shown in the sale deed in the name of plaintiff tallies with the description of the property shown in the plaint as such, the Trial Court is justified in granting a decree for injunction is the submission on behalf of the plaintiff. 17. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 18. 17. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 18. The following points arise for consideration: (a) Whether the Trial Court is justified in granting a decree for injunction in the absence of relief of declaration of title. (b) Whether the defendant No.2/appellant is able to establish that he is in possession of the property under the registered sale deed of dated 30.05.2002. 19. As far as the contention relating to maintainability of suit for bare injunction is concerned, it is to be noticed that the suit is based on a registered sale deed said to have been executed by defendant No.1. The property records stand in the name of the plaintiff. Merely because the defendant No.2 has raised a contention that the plaintiff is the owner of the property that does not automatically mean that the plaintiff is under obligation to file a suit for declaration of title. 20. If the plaintiff is able to establish his possession over the property based on the registered sale deed, then, the suit for bare junction is maintainable even in the absence of relief of declaration, more particularly, in this case, in a situation where it is an admitted fact that Ramappa Kumar was the owner of the property, as the plaintiff claims title over the property from the daughter of Ramappa Kumar. Though defendant No.2 raised the contention that defendant No.1 is not the daughter of Ramappa Kumar, defendant No.1 has not disputed her status as daughter of Ramappa Kumar. Defendant No.1 has disputed the contention relating to the execution of sale deed by her in favour of the plaintiff. However, defendant No.1 has not chosen to examine herself and has not tendered herself for the cross-examination. 21. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has referred to the registered sale deed in the name of the plaintiff said to have been executed by defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 claims title over the property under Ramappa Kumar and Ramappa Kumar admittedly was the owner of the property. 22. In the facts and circumstances appearing from the documents referred to above, the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff is in possession of the property pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2008 cannot be said to be an erroneous finding. 23. 22. In the facts and circumstances appearing from the documents referred to above, the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff is in possession of the property pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2008 cannot be said to be an erroneous finding. 23. And as already noticed the Trial Court has disbelieved the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on the premise that the description of the property referred to in Exhibit-D23 the power of attorney does not tally with the description of the property shown in the sale deed marked at Exhibit-D1. 24. Assuming that the power of attorney was executed in the year 1993 by Ramappa Kumar, then also it is relevant to notice that in the year 1993 the property was not yet converted for non-agricultural use. Thus, there is no question of formation of any site in the year 1993. Thus, reference to site number in the general power of attorney marked Exhibit-D23 does not inspire confidence. 25. In addition, as already noticed the property sold pursuant to the aforementioned power of attorney marked at Exhibit-D23 is different from the property mentioned in the sale deed Exhibit D9. 26. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has disbelieved the claim of defendant No.2 based on the registered sale deed at Exhibit-D3. 27. In case the appellant has any grievance against his vendor, it is for the appellant to seek relief as advised in law. 28. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration. 29. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 30. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed