JUDGMENT :- The defendant in O.S. Nos.741 and 742 of 1984, in the Court of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, filed these two second appeals. During the pendency of the appeals, he died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

2. O.S. No.741 of 1984 was filed by the respondents in S.A. No.479 of 2004, for the relief of perpetual injunction, restraining the appellants and their men, from causing obstruction to use the common passage, marked as ABCD in the plaint schedule, for reaching their house from the bazaar. It was pleaded that the common passage is provided under a document, marked as Ex.A.2 dated 4-8-1934, for the common benefit of all the persons mentioned therein, and despite the same, the appellants have highhandedly prevented them from using the passage. The appellants, on the other hand, pleaded that the land covered by the passage is their exclusive property, and that the respondents do not have any right to use the same.

3. Respondents in S.A.No.480 of 1994 filed O.S. No.742 of 1984, against the appellants, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction, restraining the appellants from laying napa slabs in the suit· schedule property, which is said to be a vacant land of 55 sq. yards. It was alleged that the said land was also covered by Ex.A-2, and was shown as the exclusive property belonging to the respondents, and that the appellants had highhandedly tried to lay slabs, treating it as their exclusive property. This suit also was resisted by the appellants, and it was pleaded that the suit schedule property was under their use and occupation, for the last several years.

4. The suits were clubbed, and through a common judgment dated 3-8-1989, the trial Court dismissed them. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S. Nos. 171 and 172 of 1989, respectively, in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appeals were allowed through common judgment dated 1-8-1994. Hence, these two second appeals.

5. Sri B. V.S. Shivarama Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the lower appellate Court based its finding, as regards the passage, on Ex.A-2, and that even according to the recitals therein, the respondents were entitled to use only 1/4th of the identified passage. He contends that though the recitals exist in Ex.A-2, the respondents did not prove to the satisfaction of the Court, that the passage was being used, by the time the suit was filed.

6. As regards the relief of injunction, vis-a-vis the vacant land of 55 sq. yards, learned Counsel points out that the lower appellate Court totally ignored the evidence on record, which clearly demonstrates that the appellant had constructed a kitchen, toilet, etc., in it, and despite the same, the relief of perpetual injunction was granted. He submits that the lower appellate Court was not justified, in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court.

7. Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that Ex.A-2, particularly clause 6 thereof, is clear in its purport, insofar as it not only had provided for the common rights of the parties thereto, but also the dimensions and particulars of the common passage. He contends that the trial Court was uncertain in its approach, insofar as it treated that the right claimed by the respondents was partly easementary and partly on the basis of a document.

He further contends that the vacant site of 55 sq. yards is also the subject-matter of Ex.A-2, and once it was shown as the vacant land, the averment of the appellants that subsequent improvements have been carried on it, cannot be recognized in law.

8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed individual issues in the two suits, and had undertaken common trial. On behalf of the respondents herein, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A-l to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the appellants, DWs-l to 4 were examined and Exs.B-l to B-6 were marked. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document