SANJEEVAMMA Vs. G KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS were the defendants in O. S. No. 209/94 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff Hospet. Respondents/plaintiffs filed the said suit to declare the suit property as a public road and to direct the defendants to remove the encroachment made by them marked as ABCD in the plaint sketch while granting a decree of mandatory injunction. According to the plaint averments, the residential house of the plaintiff are situated on either side of the suit property. Suit property is marked as MNOP in the suit sketch. According to them, the area earmarked as MNOP is the only ingress and aggress for the plaintiffs to reach their houses from the road. According to them, the portion marked as MNOP is measuring east-west 15 and north-south 160 contending that the said passage is used by them for the last 30 years and that there is no other way to reach the road from their houses and also on the ground that defendants highhandedly have erected huts on the northeastern side of the passage and due to erection of such huts width of the passage has ben reduced from 15' to 5', plaintiffs filed the suit for the above said relief.

(2.) DEFENDANTS though appeared, 1st defendant alone filed the written statement. According to him, portion marked as MNOP is not a passage or road and that plaintiffs have no right over the same. According to him, 1st defendant under registered sale deed dated 20-6-1968 purchased the same from one Ghouse Modeen and after purchasing the property defendants have put up a hut and are enjoying the remaining vacant land as absolute owner. According to him, defendants have left a small opening towards the west in order to reach the road and that the said open space is exclusively meant for use and occupation of the defendants and requested the Court to dismiss the suit.

(3.) BASED on the above pleadings, following issues were framed by the trial Court: