Point of law : an inference of fact from a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms or a term of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of a principle of law, is a question of law. Therefore, when there is a misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law while interpreting a document, it is open to interference under Section 100 CPC. If a document creating an easement by grant is construed as an “easement of necessity” thereby materially affecting the decision in the case, certainly it gives rise to a substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT :

M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. The 2nd plaintiff in O.S. No. 45 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Sattenapalli is the appellant in S.A. No. 667 of 2000. The respondents were the defendants.

2. The relief sought by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 45 of 1986 against the defendants was:

“(a) for declaration that the wall ‘CD’ as shown in the plaint plan exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs with a consequential mandatory injunction for restoring ‘CD’ wall to its original position which the defendants demolished illegally on 28.06.1984.

(b) for a declaration that the plaintiffs have a right of easement to project the eves of their house on ‘AB’ wall of the plaint plan and for a consequential mandatory injunction to restore the cement slab and drain to its original position which the defendants demolished on 28.06.1984.

(c) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and followers and their successors in interest from in any way interfering with the ‘CD’ wall of the plaint plan and concrete slab and drain.

(d) for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards damages for demolishing in the portion of the ‘CD’ wall, the concrete slab and drain.”

3. O.S. No. 45 of 1986 was decreed in part in the following terms:

“1. Plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the ‘CD’ wall exclusively belongs to them and for consequential mandatory injunction for restoration of the ‘CD’ wall to its original position.

2. The defendants are directed to restore ‘CD’ wall to its original position within a period of two months, if the defendants fail to do so the plaintiffs are at liberty to get the said wall restored and to recovery the expenses thereof from the defendants.

3. Plaintiffs are also entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction for restoration of slab and drain to its original position.

4. The defendants are directed to restore the said cement slab and drain to its original position within a period of two months and if they fail to do so, the plaintiffs are at liberty to get it restored and recover the costs from the defendants.

5. The defendants, their men and followers and successors-in-interest are restrained by way of permanent injunction from in any way interfering with plaintiffs’ ‘CD’ wall, concrete slab and drain, after restoration.

6. The defendants are directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards damages to the plaintiffs.

7. The suit in so far as the relief of declaration that plaintiffs are entitled for right of easement to project the eaves of their house on ‘AB’ wall is dismissed without costs.

8. The defendants are also directed to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.”

4. A.S. No. 117 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur filed by the defendants against the decree and judgment of the trial Court was allowed in part setting aside that part of the decree except awarding damages of Rs. 2,000/- by the decree and judgment dated 21.03.1998. Hence, the Second Appeal No. 667 of 2000 by the second plaintiff (1st plaintiff died during pendency of the suit).

5. The appellant in S.A. No. 667 of 2000 was the sole defendant in O.S. No. 156 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the learned District Munsif, Sattenapalli. He is the appellant in S.A. No. 673 of 2000. The 2nd respondent in S.A. No. 667 of 2000 was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 156 of 1984. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 45 of 1986 was not a party to O.S. No. 156 of 1984.

6. O.S. No. 156 of 1984 was filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from touching or meddling or resting roof over the southern compound wall of the mosque known as ‘Pedda Mosque’ at Medikonduru and from in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment as well as management of this wall by the plaintiff.

7. O.S. No. 45 of 1986 was disposed of by the trial Court along with O.S. No. 156 of 1984 by the common judgment dated 30.04.1991. O.S. No. 156 of 1984 was decreed in part restraining the defendant therein grant