MOVVA KOTIAH Vs. YELAVARTHI PUNNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant is the appellant. The respondent filed the suit for a declaration that the ABCD land is carved out for the use of the owners of the plots EFGHIJKL to reach the street on the northern side of the plots and for use of their men, cattle, carts and other allied purposes. In the sale-deed of D-1 for the plots G and K it was left out by the plaintiff's father for his use. Therefore D-1 is bound by the said recitals. As a matter of fact, even prior to 1913 and subsequently also the plaintiff was taking his carts and was using it for his men and cattle from his plots, E.F.L., through the galli ABCD. In June, 73 the 1st defendant carted earth in a portion of the galli east of plot G causing obstruction to the plaintiff to use the said galli and in spite of protests the obstruction was not removed. The plaintiff sent a notice to the 1st defendant, to which a false reply dt. 6-7-'73 was given. Hence the suit.

(2.) The 1st defendant-appellant filed a written statement contending that it is not true that the father of the 1st defendant purchased J plot. It is also denied that ABCD is a galli and carved out for use of the owners of plots FEGHIJKL to reach the street on the north. It is stated that the site up to the southern boundary of G Plot from northern bazar is absolute property of the defendant and that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors-in-title have ever used the site ABCD as a galli for ingress and egress. The mere wrong description in the sale-deed of the 1st defendant's father that there is a galli to the east of plot G is sought to be taken advantage of. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors-in-title were taking their carts from EFL through the galli ABCD. Every year the 1st defendant never questioned the same at any time. It is further stated that the plaintiff has got entrance to the eastern and southern bazars from his site and that he has been taking men, cattle and carts from his site into the east, south and western panchayat bazars from his site. The suit, therefore, is liable to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) Defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte.