K.RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. B.NEPOLEON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents filed O.S.No.2178 of 2006 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against the appellants fo The respondents pleaded that the lane shown in the plaint plan is the common facility available not only for them and the ap The appellants filed a written statement opposing the suit. It was pleaded that the so -called lane is part of the property The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 30.11.2009. Aggrieved by that, the appellants filed A.S.No.126 of Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE suit was filed for the dual relief of perpetual and mandatory injunctions. However, the trial Court framed only one issu On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were filed. On behalf of the appellants, D.W.1 was (1) Whether the EFGC road is in enjoyment of the plaintiffs and it is for ingress and egress and or sending rain and drain wa (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for right of way into the EFGC road? (3) Whether there are any grounds to set aside the findings of the learned trial Judge?

(3.) THIS Court finds that a substantial question of law, namely whether a suit for the relief of mandatory injunction, without While according to the respondents, the portion marked as EFGC is a common lane for use of persons in the locality, the ap The very fact that the relief of perpetual injunction, that too, for removal of an existing structure, discloses that the de Things would have been different altogether, had the appellants herein not disputed the claim of the respondents that EFGC It is brought to the notice of this Court that the decree has since been executed and the structure was removed. Since this