S.G. MANOHARA RAO Vs. LAKSHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four appeals are filed by plaintiffs in O.S. No. 6436 of 2013, who are defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 5877 of 2013:

(2.) The brief facts of the case leading to these appeals are as under:

(3.) It is further stated in the plaint in O.S. No. 5877 of 2013 that on the western side of property No. 34 belonging to plaintiffs beyond the said open space, there is property No. 35, which was originally owned by one V. Ramaswamy. The said Ramaswamy, during his lifetime, executed a Will, wherein property No. 35 was divided into three portions and he bequeathed: northern portion in favour of defendant 1; middle portion in favour of his wife, Smt. Savithramma and southern end portion to his another son, V.R. Rajashekhara. Subsequently, property of defendant 1 is numbered as 35, middle and southern portions are numbered as 35/1 and 35/2 respectively. Defendant 1 is in possession of property Nos. 35 and 35/1. Sri V.R. Rajashekhara, son of V. Ramaswamy, sold the property bearing No. 35/2 to defendants 2 and 3 as per the registered sale deed dated 6-8-2012. According to plaintiffs, the actual width of defendants' property from East to West is 41 feet, but in the Will executed by Ramaswamy and the sale deed executed by V.R. Rajashekhara, it is wrongly shown as 50 feet. Though defendants 2 and 3 are having independent entry through road to their property from southern side, they are interfering with plaintiffs' possession of the 'B' schedule property. Plaintiffs approached defendant 1, who is the owner of property No. 35 situate on the western side of their property, to resolve the dispute between plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3. He has not made any effort to solve the problem.