P SATYAKALA Vs. P CHANDRAKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed O.S.No. 119 of 1995 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, against the appellants seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from letting their drain water along with the southern wall in front of the house of the plaintiff, bearing No. 6-3-10/1/1, situated at Ramagiri, Nalgonda.

(2.) The appellants filed their written statement and issues were framed. The 1st respondent was examined as P.W. 1 and documents Exs. A-1 to A-8 were marked on her behalf. The D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the appellants herein and Exs. B-1 to B-10 were marked. The trial Court dismissed the suit. It however directed the appellants herein to lay an under ground pipeline in the place of the existing drain in front of the house of the respondents. They were also permitted to let the rain water from their house into the municipal drain, situated on the north of the plaintiffs' house. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred A.S.No. 10 of 1999 in the court of the III Additional District Court (I Fast Tract Court), Nalgonda. The appeal was allowed through Judgment dated 14-8-2003. Hence, the Second Appeal by the defendants.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the instance of the respondent an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court and in his report the Commissioner had categorically stated that the defendants have no other alternative except to let the drain and rain water into the municipal drain existing on the northern side of the house of the plaintiff and that the defendants have been using the drain in question since last several years. He submits that the lower appellate Court did not consider the claim of the appellants herein as an easement by necessity. He further submits that the trial Court has taken all these aspects into account and directed the defendants to lay an underground pipeline to let the drain water.