AHMED BI Vs. KRISHNA PANDURANGA KOKIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants who are aggrieved against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.86 of 1987 and Cross- objections dated 16-12-1989 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool arising out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.416 of 1979 dated 29-7-1987 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kurnool.

(2.) The respondents filed the suit for permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants restraining them from using the open space 'ABCD' or space over it vertically for the purpose of egress and ingress to the premises bearing No.18/122-A from No.18/124 through doorways 1 and 2 and stairs 'ST' and over bridge 'OB' or by any other device and also for a mandatory injunction for removal of the doorways 1 and 2 and the stair case ST, over bridge 'OB' and water pipe connected to the first floors of premises No.18/124 and 18/122-A.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, they are the owners of the premises No.18/123 and 18/122-A1, Rasooi Bazar, Kurnool. Originally, these two premises along, with premises No.18/122 belonged to one family and in the partition between the different branches in the said family, the ABCD open space was left open as a passage to the residents of premises No.18/122-A. The plaintiffs purchased the premises No.18/123 and space in front of it with a bunk under a registered sale deed dated 25-7-1969. Later, they constructed a pucca shop in the place of fhe bunk, which was given the No.l8/122-Al. The defendant No.2 is the attestor to the said sale deed apart from taking part during the negotiations for the purpose of purchase of the said house by the plaintiffs. Later, the defendant No.2 purchased the premises No.18/122/A and 18/122 under registered sale deeds dated 28-9-1970 in favour of his sons viz., defendants 3 to 5. He also purchased the premises No.18/124 on the Eastern side of 'ABCD' space in the name of the defendant No.l who is his wife under a registered sale deed dated 7-8-1951 from a different owner. However, the said premises viz., No.18/124 is not in any way connected with the premises bearing No.18/123 or 18/122 or 12/122-A. When the plaintiffs Were absent in January, 1975, the defendants highhandedly opened two doorways/Nos.1 and 2 in the first floor of premises No.18/124 overlooking the ABCD site and laid an over bridge 'OB' connecting the first floor of premises No.18/124 and 18/122-A with door No.3 in the first floor of premises No.18/122-A. The said over- bridge is at a height of 10 feet from the ground and they also constructed a staircase abutting 'CB' wall on its Northern end to reach door No.l. In spite of the plaintiffs' objection, the defendants did not stop the construction. The case of the plaintiffs is, that the defendants had absolutely no right of passage to the premises bearing No.18/122-A through the said ABCD. Again the defendants have put up a plastic pipe to take water from the premises No.18/124 to premises No.l8/122-A along 'OB' bridge. They also put up an opening to the over-bridge towards the North with a view to put a staircase to go down from there into the open space ABCD. As the defendants are rich and powerful, they' obtained permission from the authorities and made the said construction. Hence the suit.