( 1 ) THIS second appeal is filed against the judgment in A. S. No. 37 of 1997 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, tadepalligudem, through which it reversed the judgment and decree, dated 14-5-1997, of the Court of Principal District Munsif, tadepalligudem, in O. S. No. 129 of 1990.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent filed the suit, initially, for the relief of perpetual injunction, restraining the appellant herein from interfering with his right of access by way of easement, for the purpose of ingress and egress from the plaint schedule property to the R and B road, through the road margin. Subsequently, the prayer for mandatory injunction for removal of pillars and restoration of the site to its normal position in R, R2, R6 and R7 portion of the road margin, was added. The 1st respondent contended that he purchased the suit schedule property under two separate sale deeds, dated 15-7-1974 and 24-5-1975, marked as Exs. A. 1 and A. 2, respectively. He pleaded that the western side of the suit schedule property is the Randb road and the appellant had encroached into the road margin before the suit schedule property and obstructed his access to the road.

( 3 ) THE appellant filed a written statement, denying the contentions of the 1st respondent. He pleaded that his father constructed a thatched shed in the gramakantam abutting the road, 50 years back, and when the same was damaged in the cyclone, he constructed a tin shed with R. C. C. pillars. He pleaded that the 1st respondent has no right, whatsoever, against the land over which he constructed the house and that the Gram Panchayat has also recognized his possession by collecting tax and issuing licence. He pleaded that there exists Gramakantam between the road margin on the one hand and the suit schedule property on the other hand. According to him, the 1st respondent had, in fact, encroached into the road margin.

( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent-Executive engineer, Roads and Buildings, Bhimavaram, filed a written statement pleading that the appellant herein had encroached into the road margin, and thereby, obstructed the free flow of traffic. He contended that the appellant has no right, whatsoever, over the road margin.

( 5 ) BEFORE the Trial Court, the 1st respondent was examined as P. W. I and he has also examined PW. 2. Exs. A. l and A. 2 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, dws. t to 3 were examined and Exs. B. 1 to B. 7 were marked. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. It was found that the suit notice was issued in the year 1983, whereas it was filed in the year 1990. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the 1st respondent filed A. S. No. 37 of 1997. The lower Appellate court allowed the appeal.

( 6 ) SRI P. Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the lower Appellate Court misread the evidence and ignored the fact that there exists a gramakantam between the road margin on the one hand and the properties covered under Exs. A. l and A. 2 on the other hand. He submits that the shed raised by the appellant was in existence even by the time the 1st respondent purchased the suit schedule property. Learned Counsel submits that if the appellant had encroached into the road margin or Government property, it is for the concerned authorities to take steps for removal of such structures, and that the suit claim is without any basis.

( 7 ) SRI P. Girish Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 clearly disclose that the property covered by them is facing the R and B road on the western side. He submits that no individual has any right to encroach into the road margin and thereby to obstruct the ingress and egress of the persons holding properties abutting the road. He places reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Sataraboyina someswararao v. Sangasetti Tirupathamma, 1989 (1) ALT 36.

( 8 ) THE suit, as amended, was for the relief of perpetual

Click Here to Read the rest of this document