The respondent herein filed O.S.No.36 of 1999 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla against the appellant, for the relief of perpetual injunction as regards the use of a passage, marked in the sketch, appended to the plaint. He pleaded that the passage in question is the only access for him to reach the Gram Panchayat road, for the last several decades. Apart from the right on account of the prolonged usage, he also claimed right to the extent of one-fourth share vis--vis the passage on account of purchase of an item of property from one Smt.Lakkireddi Rajavva, a close relation of the appellant. He complained that the appellant is obstructing the use of passage without any basis. The appellant filed a written statement denying the claim of the respondent. He pleaded that the respondent had an independent access and he does not have any right what-so-ever to use the passage in question. Objection was also raised as to the maintainability of the suit in the absence of any relief for declaration.

2. Through its judgment, dated 03.06.2006, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondent filed A.S.No.4 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Siricilla. The same was allowed by the lower appellate Court on 17.09.2007 and the suit was decreed, as prayed for. Hence, the second appeal.

3. Sri B. Mahender Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent himself realized that a mere suit for injunction cannot be maintained and accordingly, filed I.A.No.112 of 2007 with a prayer to amend the suit to incorporate the plea of declaration and having dismissed the I.A., the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal. He submits that apart from dismissing the I.A. for amendment, the lower appellate Court has also recorded a finding to the effect that the respondent failed to prove his plea that he acquired one- fourth share in the front yard and despite that, the suit was decreed.

4. Sri A.Bhaskara Chari, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client was using the passage for the last several decades and on the basis of evidence before it, the lower appellate Court recorded a clear finding in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit.

5. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this second appeal are: (a) whether a suit for mere injunction can be maintained as regards the right to use of a passage? (b) whether the relief of perpetual injunction can be granted even after holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his prima facie rights that constituted the foundation? A suit for perpetual injunction without the relief of declaration of title can be maintained, if the plaintiff claims right of exclusive possession over the property. Even if there exists any dispute as to title, the primary concern of the Court would be to verify as to who among the parties were in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit. If the possession was found to be otherwise tenable, grant of injunction would be a matter of course, irrespective of absence of title in the plaintiff. The defendant would be injuncted from interfering with the possession, but, it would left open to him to seek eviction through the process of the Court. The right to use a passage, however, stands on a different footing. No one can claim exclusive possession over a passage or a road. The usage can be either on the strength of any legal rights or on the basis of easementary rights. Either way, a declaration as to the right to use passage must be sought and the relief of injunction has to be claimed as a corollary. In the instant case, the respondent did not claim the relief of declaration of any nature. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The necessity of incorporating the relief of declaration was felt by the respondent, may be after the dismissal of the suit. He filed I.A.No.112 of 20