( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 4093 of 1984 on the file of the VI assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is the appellant. Late Mohd. Ibrahim moosa, alone, filed the suit. During the pendency of the proceedings, the sole plaintiff died, and his legal representatives are brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) THE father of the plaintiff late J. Moosa held vast extent of property, in premises bearing Nos. 4-1-866/1 and 2, at abids Road, Hyderabad. The plaintiff and three others are his sons. The family partition of the property took place in the year 1978. The shares of the plaintiff and his another brother, by name, Md. Ismail Moosa remained joint. The division between them took place later. It is not necessary to mention, in detail, the items of property, that have fallen to the share of the plaintiff and his other brother. Suffice it to say, that the legal representatives of late Md. Ismail moosa have leased out the premises, that have fallen to their share, in favour of the defendant, and that a lodge is being run therein.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff pleaded that the partition between himself and his other brother is complete, in all respects. He stated that there existed a pump room on the southern side of his property and during acute scarcity of supply, water used to be supplied through pumps, from that place to the lodge, run by the defendant. It was alleged that during the absence of the plaintiff, on 11-12-1984, the defendant had laid a pipeline to the sump, from a bore-well, through the open land of the plaintiff. Ultimately, the plaintiff prayed for the relief of declaration, that the defendant had illegally laid the water pipeline, through the plaintiffs property, and sought for mandatory injunction against the defendant, for removal of the same.

( 4 ) THE defendant filed a written-statement and pleaded that the pump room and sump was common for her lessor and the plaintiff. She pleaded that the plaintiff did not have any exclusive right vis-a-vis the sump, and the laying of pipeline did not infringe his rights in any manner.

( 5 ) THROUGH his judgment dated 31-1-1990, the trial Court decreed the suit, in part, to the extent of requiring the defendant to remove that portion of the pipeline, which passed through the entrance to the plaintiffs property, shown in the relevant maps appended to the plaint.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff filed A. S. No. 67 of 1990, aggrieved by the denial of relief, as to declaration and mandatory injunction, as prayed for; in the Court of Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The defendant in turn, filed A. S. No. 68 of 1990, assailing the decree granted by the trial court, against her. Through separate judgments rendered on 11-2-1994, the Lower appellate Court allowed A. S. No. 67 of 1990 and dismissed A. S. No. 68 of 1990.

( 7 ) IN the memorandum of second appeal, the defendant had stated as though it was filed against the judgments and decrees in A. S. Nos. 67 and 68 of 1990. However, when it was pointed out, as to how one second appeal can be preferred against the decrees in two first appeals, learned Counsel for ,the defendant has submitted that the second appeal be restricted to the one, against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 67 of 1990.

( 8 ) SRI T. S. Anand, learned Counsel for the defendant (appellant) submits that though the suit was for the relief of declaration, that the laying of pipeline by defendant, connecting the pump room was illegal, and for mandatory injunction, for removal of the same; the Lower Appellate court went beyond the scope of the suit and declared that the pump room was the exclusive property of the plaintiff. He contends that when even according to the plaintiff, the water was being supplied through the pump and sumps, in the common room, to the lodge, run by the defendant, there was no justification, either by the trial court, or for the Lower Appellate Court, in grantin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document