UPPARI BAZARI Vs. E.RANGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL defendants in both the Courts below are the appellants herein. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property consists of Ac.2 -20 guntas in S.No.120/D and Ac.0 -21 guntas in S.No.75/D/1 of R.Garlapadu, Itkyal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the plaint schedule lands. But the defendants plead that they have Rastha by way of cart track through the plaintiff's lands to reach their own lands situated beyond the plaintiff's lands. Both the Courts below negatived the defendants' claim for Rastha and granted decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Therefore, the defendants approached this Court with this second appeal.

(2.) THE appellant's counsel in this second appeal does not dispute right and title as well as possession of the suit lands of the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendants have got Rastha through the plaintiff's land. The defendants did not file any documents to show existence of Rastha. Ex.B -1 is Khasra Pahani and Exs.B -2 to B -5 are pahanis. They do not reflect anything on existence or absence of Rastha in the suit lands. Oral evidence of the defendant as D.W -1 and other villagers as D.Ws 2 to 5 are not supported by any documentary evidence. D.W -6 is stated to have conducted Panchanama and prepared Ex.P -6. The plaintiff contends that the said Panchanama is prepared by D.W -6 behind his back. D.W -6 is Mandal Revenue Officer, Itkyal. He has no statutory authority to prepare any Panchanama. He cannot usurp power to make panchanama as he likes. In any event D.W -6 in cross -examination admits that there is no Rastha as per Naksha (plan). When Rastha claimed by the defendants is not a plan marked Rastha, it cannot be said that it is in existence since times immemorial.

(3.) IN the result, the second appeal is dismissed.