M RAMA KRISHNA REDDY Vs. N PRABHAKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having lost in both the courts below, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) The facts are jejune: - Plaintiff - respondent has purchased through registered sale deed dated 4-8-1978, the land shown in the plaint plan by letters 'ABCEFGH' and constructed a kottam (cattle shed) on a portion of it shown by letters 'BEFG' with entrance shown by letter 'X'. The portion shown in the plaint plan by letters 'ABGH' is the front part of yard of the kottam which is the passage to reach the kottam from the street. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against the appellants alleging that they had placed hayrick illegally on the protion shown by letters 'ABGH' in the plaint plan (in short 'the disputed land) and, therefore, had prevented the respondent-plaintiff from using the path.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement alleging that the whole area shown by letters 'ABCEFGH' was the part of their lime grinder. This land is his ancestral property. The vendor, namely, Chengal Reddy was not the owner in possession of the aforesaid land and, therefore, he could not pass any title to the respondent-plaintiff through the sale deed dated 4-8-1978. In order to grab the aforementioned land, about fifteen years backhe got a gift deed executed by one A.V. Subbamma in favour of his brother's son, namely Siva Rami Reddy in which it has been mentioned that the gifted property is situated in the south of the land shown in the plaint plan by letters "ABEFGH'. Few year prior to 4-8-1978, on the recommendation of the village Munsif and others, the defendants have donated a small portion of land out of the lime grinder site on which the vendor of the plaintiff-respondent has constructed the kottam and there is a separate path to reach the main street from the kottam. He has prayed for dismissal of the suit. The other defendants have adopted the wirtten statement of the 1st defendant.