ANUMILA CHOWDAIAH Vs. MUNDLAMURI NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the 2nd defendant in the suit O.S. No. 65/80 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Narsaraopet preferred the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was dismissed for default as against respondents 2 and 3. However, it is stated that respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to the Second Appeal.

(2.) The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and the 1st respondent instituted the suit O.S. No. 65/80 on the file of Principal Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet for the relief of specific performance of contract dated 24-2-1974 against the 1st defendant one Komera China Venkatesu and for declaration of plaintiff's right of passage through XY together with a consequential mandatory injunction directing the removal of all obstructions from joint passage and for costs of the suit. The said China Venkatesu, though had figured as 1st appellant in A.S. No. 59/83 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, he had not preferred Second Appeal and he was shown as 2nd respondent in the Second Appeal against whom the Second Appeal was dismissed for default and hence as far as the relief of specific performance is concerned, the said question is not being seriously agitated by both the parties in the present Second Appeal.

(3.) In the plaint it was averred as follows: