( 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.

( 4 ) THE trial court framed four issues having regard to the rival claim in the pleadings. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked as many as fifteen documents - Exs. A. 1 to A. 15. In rebuttal, the second defendant was examined as d. W. 1 besides marking Exs. B. 1 to B. 14. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 05-03-2003 dismissed the suit with costs. The trial court came to the conclusion that the enjoyment of 11/2 feet width site on the south of the plaintiff s property by the defendants and insertion of door frame by them into s series wall, disprove the plaintiff s claim to absolute right over the area covered by the joint wall, that the plaintiff has no title to the suit schedule property and, therefore, not entitled for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05-3-2003 passed by the trial court, the plaintiff preferred A. S. No. 40 of 2003 on the file of Court of II- additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole. A copy of grounds of appeal placed before this court would show that the plaintiff/appellant raised as many as forty eight (48) grounds running into thirteen (13) pages. Every conceivable point was urged in the memorandum of grounds by the plaintiff. Be that as it is, the lower appellate Court framed a single point for determination. Taking overview of the matter with specific reference to the judgment of the trial Court, by judgment dated 31-8-2005, allowed the appeal decreeing the suit.

( 5 ) IN this second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Y. S. Sai Vara prasad, inter alia, contends that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is not in accordance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short cpc ). Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent (who filed caveat in the second appeal) and having regard to the disposal of the second appeal, at the admission stage, it is not necessary to refer to submissions on merits of the ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document