M SUBBARAYUDU Vs. RAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below are the appellants and the plaintiff is the respondent in the present second appeal. This appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Chittoor in AS No. 12 of 1988 dated 29-7-1994.

(2.) The facts in brief are as specified hereunder: The plaintiff, the respondent herein, had originally instituted the suit OS No.261 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palamaner for the relief of permanent injunction against the appellant- defendants on the ground mat the defendants had been interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule site and that they had no right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property. Subsequent thereto, the plaint was got amended by adding the prayer for the relief of declaration of title also. It is pleaded in the plaint that the suit site, which is to the north of the hut in which the respondent plaintiff resides, had been purchased by the respondent plaintiff from one Sholingapuram Venkatappa under a registered sale deed dated 15-2-1950 and since then the plaintiff had been residing in the hut to the south of the suit site as well as the suit vacant site wherein there is stone pillar and hayrick. At the time of purchase of the suite site, the house of the plaintiffs family was situated at the west of the hut, which hut is now in occupation of one Peddabba and to the north of suit site, the site was acquired by the first defendant who constructed a house and purchased its north and that the site on which the house of first defendant is constructed is distinctly separated from the suit site. The second and third defendants are the sons of the first defendant and all the appellant- defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the plaint schedule site.

(3.) The third defendant filed a written statement and a memo of adoption was filed by the defendants 1 and 2. It was pleaded in the written statement that the boundaries of the suit site are entirely different from that of the sale deed and hence neither the plaintiff nor her vendor had any title and further the house of the defendants is situated to the north and east and the space mentioned for usage of hayrick is in existence and the same is in possession of the defendants and it is their property and that bathroom of the plaintiff is about three feet on higher level to the vacant site and hence the defendants have no need to encroach on the suit site since the suit site belongs to them and it is the plaintiff and her people who are trying to encroach on the suit site and the suit is liable to be dismissed.