B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Appeals are directed against the common Judgment in AS. Nos. 34/78 and 35/78 dated 3-8-1987 of the learned Subordinate Judge, tanuku. They were the matters before the learned Subordinate Judge arising out of the common Judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tanuku in OS. Nos. 341/68 and 195/74 dated 8-3-1978. OS. 341/68 was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the raising of the height of 14" wall and constructed to the west of FG wall and the raising of the height of the old wall and the newly added wall as consolidated in the line GH as shown in the plaint plan. OS. No. 195/74 was the suit by the same plaintiff for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to cut away the tree together with its roots and alternatively to declare that the wall HJV shown in the plaint plan belongs to the plaintiff and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff in cutting away the said tree. The suits were decreed as follows with the observations:"os. No. 341/68: The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in any manner of interfering with the raising of the height of 14" wall constructed to the west of FG wall and also with the raising of the newly added wall constructed to the north of GJ wall and in making constructions over the said newly added wall. OS. No. 195/74: The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring that the wall HJV except to the width of 10" south of HJ wall belongs to the plaintiff and the rest of the suit claims are dismissed. "the appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The plaintiff took up the matters in appeal in both the suits challenging the observations made by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tanuku which were confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge after hearing both the sides. No other matter decided by the learned Principal District Munsif on other issues was called in challenge by either of the parties. In these appeals also, the plaintiff as the appellant has challenged the observations of the learned principal District Munsif confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge and also the portion of the claim which was disallowed by partly decreeing the suit. These two Appeals involving common questions of facts and law are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

( 2 ) A brief record of the proved and admitted facts in addition to the findings of the facts and the law considered and decided by both the Courts below would be necessary and useful. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. They are inter-related. Their houses are abutting each other with only one wall in between them ABCDEFGHJV as shown in the suit sketch and the Commissioner s plan Ex. X-2. The building and the structures of the plaintiff are on the northern side whereas that of the defendants are on the southern side. The plaintiff is held to be the owner of the portion of the wall EFGHJV and defendants plea of title to the suit wall is rejected. There is no dispute in the suit wall by the defendants except the portion EFGHJ. It is found that the defendants building on the southern side has no separate wall. They have a terraced room to the south of EF portion of the wall. The rafters of the terraced room are inserted in the EFGHJ portion of the wall to an extent of 10". The Kitchen sheds Y1 and Y2 are abutting gj portion and their rafters are inserted in the disputed portion of the wall. Such constructions of the defendants and rafters inserted in the disputed wall are in existence since 60 years.

( 3 ) IT it held by both the Courts below that the defendants have perfected their title to the EFGHJ portion of the plaintiff s wall to the extent of 10" by adverse possession.

( 4 ) IN

Click Here to Read the rest of this document