( 1 ) HEARD Sri Narayana the learned Counsel representing Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Counsel for the appellant and Sri M. P. Chandra Mouli, counsel representing the 2nd respondent.

( 2 ) SHAIK Fathima Bi, the plaintiff in o. S. No. 45/85 on the file of District Munsif, gudur, being aggrieved of the reversal of the said judgment and decree made in a. S. No. 18/93 on the file of Principal subordinate Judge, Gudur had preferred the present second appeal. The defendant in the suit, Shaik Nanne Saheb, died during pendency of A. S. No. 18/93 and the legal representatives of the deceased 1st appellant therein in A. S. No. 18/93 were brought on record in I. A. No. 113/90 dated 6-4-1993. It would be appropriate to make a mention here itself that as against Respondents 3 and 4, the legal representatives of Shaik nanne Saheb, the second appeal was dismissed for default and the other legal representative Shaik Najeer Ahmed, 2nd respondent in the second appeal alone is on record at present. The Counsel on record advanced contentions taking this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and by the first Appellate Court as well. The Counsel representing the appellant would contend that the well reasoned judgment of the court of first instance had been reversed by the Appellate Court and on the contrary the Counsel representing the 2nd respondent would contend that this being a suit for permanent injunction, a personal action, in view of the fact that the appeal was dismissed for default as against Respondents 3 and 4, the same need not be considered on merits even as against the 2nd respondent, the other legal representative of the deceased defendant. The Counsel also pointed out to the findings recorded by the Appellate Court and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same may have to be confirmed. While admitting the second appeal on 13-6-1997, this Court framed the following substantial question of law: "whether the report of a Commissioner cannot be taken as a part of record unless marked as an exhibit in the suit. "

( 3 ) APPELLANT herein, the plaintiff in o. S. No. 45/85 on the file of District Munsif, gudur, filed the suit against Shaik Nanne saheb, the defendant in the suit praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men from in any manner obstructing the plaintiff and her men from making use of path way on the North of schedule mentioned property. The respective pleadings of the parties are as hereunder:

( 4 ) THE plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she purchased the same on 17-8-1983 under a registered sale deed and she is in possession of the property since the date of purchase of the property. The Northern boundary for the schedule mentioned property is the way leading to the municipal road on the East and the same is being enjoyed by the plaintiff. The defendant who has no property to the North of the said path way is obstructing the plaintiff and her men from making use of the same since two days. The defendant is having numerical strength in the locality and the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for a permanent injunction against him and the suit is to be decreed.

( 5 ) THE defendant filed a written statement pleading as hereunder : the defendant is not aware of the registered sale deed mentioned in Para-4 of the plaint. The description of the Northern boundary as the way leading to the municipal road on the East is false. If such a recital exists in the registered sale deed, it is a false recital as there is no way at all on the northern side of the plaint schedule site. Adjoining the plaint schedule property on the Northern side, there is the property belonging to the defendant. No other person has any right or interest over the same. The allegation that the defendant has no property to the North of the alleged pathway and that the plaintiff and his men are using the pathway and the