MYALAVARAPU SUBBA RAO Vs. KOLLAPALLI LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed O.S. No.326 of 1999 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, against the respondent, claiming the relief of perpetual injunction. They pleaded that they have purchased the suit schedule property, under two registered sale deeds, dated 13-8-1990, from one Smt. G. Annapurnamma and her two sons. Their complaint is that the respondent, who is the immediate neighbour on the southern side, is raising a construction, blocking the air and light through windows and ventilators, in the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the defendant, a document, dated 6-5-1989, is relied upon. The petitioners raised an objection as to the admissibility of that document. The trial Court overruled the same, through its order, dated 14-10-2004. The petitioners challenge the said order.

(2.) Sri G. Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the document, in question, purports to recognize the title of the respondent on the property, on the southern side, and in that view of the matter, it requires registration. The second objection is that apart from Smt. G. Annapurnamma, her two sons were also the owners of the suit schedule property, before it was transferred to the petitioners, and since the said document was executed by Smt. G. Annapurnamma alone, it is not binding upon the petitioners. The third objection is that the respondent cannot press the impugned document into service, unless she establishes her title through other independent documents.

(3.) Mr. Ch. Dhanunjaya, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the document, in question, is nothing but an undertaking given by the predecessor in title of the petitioners, to remove the windows, which were opened towards the property of the respondent. He contends that the document is not liable to be registered nor does it suffer from any other legal or factual infirmity.