Since these three appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Since the original appellant in S.A. Nos.151 and 152 of 1999 and SA (SR) No.8875 of 1997 died, his LRs have been brought on record as per the orders of this Court dated 18.12.2008 and 12.08.2010 in SAMP Nos.1375 and 1378 of 2007 and 652 and 637 of 2010 and in SA(SR) No. 929 of 2010 respectively.

3. S.A. No. 151 of 1999 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17.07.1996 passed in A.S. No. 56 of 1993 by the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1993 passed in O.S. No.949 of 1988 by the III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, has been confirmed.

4. S.A. No. 152 of 1999 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17.07.1996 passed in A.S. No. 57 of 1993 by the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1993 passed in O.S. No.65 of 1987 by the III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, has been confirmed.

5. Similarly, S.A (SR) No. 8875 of 1997 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17.07.1996 passed in A.S. No. 55 of 1993 by the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1993 passed in O.S. No. 440 of 1988 by the III Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, has been confirmed.

6. O.S. Nos.657 of 1987 and 949 of 1988 have been filed by the original appellant herein. Since the original appellant died he is being represented by his legal heirs in the second appeals. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.440 of 1988.

7. O.S. No.657 of 1987 has been filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching the ABCD property shown in the rough sketch and for costs. O.S. No.949 of 1988 has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling the site i.e., 40’ service road marked as ABCDEF. O.S. No.440 of 1988 has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property and for possession of ABCD road marked portion encroached by the defendant and for mesne profits.

8. The brief case of the plaintiff in O.S. Nos.657 of 1987 and 949 of 1988 is as follows. The plaintiff purchased 240 sq. yards of land for a consideration of Rs.48,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 06.09.1986, marked as Ex.A1, from one Smt. Kumuna Kumari Panda. The said Smt. Kumuna Kumari Panda purchased the said property from one K. Mallikarjuna Rao, who had purchased the same from the original owner Chilla Narasimhulu i.e., the father of the defendant. The property of the plaintiff is plot No.6 and to the south of the plaint schedule property there is a 40’ service road which is the only way to plot No.6. It is alleged that the defendant is making efforts to construct a fence across 40’ service road so as to obstruct the way to the plaintiff’s property. The 40’ service road is abutting the 200’ National Highway. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the father of the defendant sold several plots to several persons and that the defendant has no right over the 40’ service road. It is also alleged that the defendant is trying to alienate the 40’ service road and therefore he may be restrained by an order of injunction.

9. The case of the defendant, as seen from the written statements filed by him in O.S. Nos.657 of 1987 and 949 of 1988 and the averments made in his plaint in O.S. No. 440 of 1988, is as follows. His father late Chilla Narasimhulu owned extensive properties in Respuvanipalem village and he made a lay out and sold plots to various persons and out of those plots, plot No.6 was sold under a registered sale deed dated 29.07.1971 to one Mallikarjuna Rao, from whom Smt. Kumana Kumari Panda purchased and from whom the plaintiff purchased the said plot in 1986. It is the case of the defendant