EDIGA RANGANAYAKULU Vs. B. VENKATESU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt. 18.06.2014 in AS. No. 8 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram (Old AS. No. 17 of 2006 on the file Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda), confirming the judgment and decree dt. 19.10.2006 in OS. No. 28 of 1997 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram.

(2.) THE appellants herein are the legal representatives of 1st defendant.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property is an open site consisting of a courtyard and rasta/path way of the plaintiffs house property more particularly described in the sketch filed along with plaint as ACDF; plaintiffs are owners of adjacent houses shown as MNOPQ to the south of ACDF area; 1st plaintiff got ABEF property by uninterrupted, continuous, peaceful, open and hostile possession over it for more than the statutory period prescribed for adverse possession; that ABEF site was part of Gramakantam originally; likewise, plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and 4 have got right over BCDE property under a registered document relating to their EBGHCD property; out of ACDF plaint schedule property, ACXY part was being used as a courtyard in front of the houses of plaintiffs; the doors, windows, spouts, ventilators of plaintiffs houses open into ABXY; that this was also used by plaintiffs to stand their carts, store agricultural implements, etc.,; that out of ACDF suit property, the other YXDF part was used by plaintiffs as a rasta/path for ingress and outgress for the houses and respective courtyards of their houses; they had been using the ACDF property exclusively since it is a necessity for the beneficial enjoyment of their houses; that defendants are enjoying the property shown as DIJE in the plaint sketch to the north of ACDF; that one Jardhar was enjoying the property shown as FEJK; defendants have no right, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property; there is a public rasta/path to the north of the properties of defendants; and defendants intended to encroach into the plaint schedule property and threatened to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit property and obstruct and interfere with their use and occupation of the suit property prompting the filing of the suit. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 1ST DEFENDANT :