THUMMALAPENTA SEETHARAMAIH Vs. ULCHI VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 7 (for short 'the Respondents') filed O.S. No. 142 of 1994 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Chirala, against Respondents 8 to 11 and the Appellant herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of 'A' schedule property, and mandatory injunction, in respect of 'B' schedule property. It Was pleaded that, they own land nearby the highway - Sopirala Village, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Ongole District, and they have access to the highway through a Gramakantam, admeasuring Ac. 0.12. cents, described in the 'A' schedule. Their complaint was that the Appellant herein, who figured as Defendant No. 5, has raised a hut in an extent of Ac. 0.02 cents described in 'B' schedule and is causing obstruction to their access. Their principal grievance was against the Appellant, and their complaint, against Respondents 8 to 11, was mostly about their inaction to remove the encroachment.

(2.) The Appellant alone contested the matter. He filed a written statement, stating that the Respondents themselves have encroached into Gramakantam of Ac. 0.12 cents, and the hut raised by him does not at all obstruct the access to the highway. Through its judgment, dated 29.02.1996, the trial Court decreed the suit. A.S. No. 13 of 1996, filed by the Appellant, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, was dismissed on 19.02.1999. Hence, the Second Appeal.

(3.) Sri Surendra Desai, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court recorded specific findings to the effect that the encroachment made by the Appellant does not in any way obstruct the access of the Respondents to the highway and still have decreed the suit. He contends that the very suit filed by the Respondents is not maintainable, inasmuch as they did not claim any right of ownership, vis-a-vis the land and being encroachers themselves, they cannot seek the relief of mandatory injunction against the Appellant.