KAMEPALLI SITARAMIAH Vs. NALLURI KRISHNA MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the defendants. The suit filed by the respondent for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial court. However, on appeal, the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit, aggrieved by which, the present second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants. In this judgment, the parties are referred to by their status in the original suit.

(2.) In the suit being O.S.No. 103 of 2000 on the file of Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, the plaintiff alleged that the properties shown in 'A' series in the plaint plan belong to plaintiff; whereas the properties in 'B' series belong to defendants, that there is a small lane on the west of the house and a common passage on the east of the house in 'A' series, that at the time of construction, the father of the plaintiff left 11/2 feet width of site to the south of the wall for eves water and for repairs of the southern wall, which is suit schedule property; and that when the plaintiff wanted to re-construct the varandah on the south, the defendants caused obstruction denying the title of the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction.

(3.) The first defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the remaining defendants. While denying the allegation that 11/2 feet width of wall on the southern side belongs to plaintiff family, the defendants further alleged that the dividing wall in between the houses in the backyard is a joint wall upto a height of 61/2 feet and is continuation wall in between the houses and varandah for the plaintiff and defendants. It was further alleged that by making construction on the southern side, the plaintiff wants to make exclusive use of joint wall area on which he has no right and, therefore, the defendants resisted such claim.