AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE Vs. NETTEM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.54 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur, in A.S.No.217 of 2000, which, in turn, arose out of the judgment and decree dated 07-11-2000, passed in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs own houses in Guntur town, abutting a 100 feet road. They filed O.S.No.54 of 1999 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against the defendants, i.e. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Corporation of Guntur and the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, for the relief of declaration to the effect that they have a right to reach the public road situated in the southern side of their house shown as ABCDEF in the plaint, and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 i.e. the appellant and the 1st respondent herein to remove the constructions, made in the site marked as DEFGH in the plaint, in an area of 15 x 7 1/2 feet, so that they can have free access to the public road and for perpetual injunction, restraining the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 from making construction in the said site.

(3.) It was pleaded that the 1st plaintiff became owner of the plot No.1 shown in the plaint schedule, on the basis of a relinquishment deed dated 22-09-1972 executed by Smt.Gudibandi Bapamma whereas the 2nd plaintiff purchased item 2, shown in the plaint schedule, through two sale deeds dated 15-07-1979 and 01-08-1980 and that they are in continuous possession of the same. It was stated that they constructed houses on their plots and that the houses are assessed to tax by the 3rd defendant. They pleaded that the 1st defendant published a notification on 23-01-1999 proposing to start a rytu bazaar near Swamy Theatre, Guntur, and thereafter the defendants 2 and 3 started construction of a shed of zinc sheets, in front of their houses in the road margin and their access to the main road was blocked. According to the plaintiffs, there was absolutely no legal basis for the defendants in blocking their way and construction of tin sheds on the road margin.