JUDGMENT:

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.188 of 1991 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur are the appellants. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. Originally, the suit was filed by the appellants 1 and 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2 against the respondents/ defendants 1, 2. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff died and then the appellants 3 to 6/plaintiffs 3 to 6 were added as plaintiffs, being legal representatives of the 1st plaintiff, as per Orders in IA.No.1082 of 1997, dated 15.09.1997.

2. The appellants and the respondents herein after referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants, seeking relief of declaration and for mandatory injunction for removal of alleged projections, eaves of the house of the defendants into the plaintiffs’ site.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the 1st plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule site in the year 1976 from ‘Talluri people’ and obtained Ex.A4 registered sale deed on 11.04.1988 to an extent of site of Ac.0-40.092 cents and ever since the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, which is shown as ‘site’. They submit that after plaintiffs purchased the site, the defendants have purchased Ac.0-10 cents of site from one Bhaskara Rao and his mother about 10 years back on the western side by the side of the plaintiffs site and their purchase is 10 years after purchase of the site by the plaintiffs. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that their site and the site of the defendants are vacant sites and thereafter both have constructed houses in their respective sites. The plaintiffs have alleged that when the defendants were contemplating to construct a thatched house in their site, adjoining to their site, they requested the defendants to see that the eaves of their house should not project or extend into the plaint schedule site, which accepted by the defendants. But subsequently, when the plaintiffs were absent in the village, the defendants made constructions with the eaves of the house extended to the plain schedule site to a width of 6 feet. They further alleged that the defendants have also constructed a pial with mud on the eastern side wall of their house by occupying an extent of 10 sq.yards of their site and high handedly enchroached into their site to an extent of 5 sq.yards and constructed a small thatched hut on the south-east corner of their site, wherein they have no right.

The plaintiffs have shown the alleged encroachments by the defendants in red colour in Ex.A1 plaint plan and they have shown their site as ‘ABCD’ in the plaint plan and site of the defendants is shown as ‘ADEF’ in Ex.A1 plaint plan. As efforts of the plaintiffs with the help of the mediators to get the encroachments made by the defendants removed failed, they filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.

5. The defendants filed written statement, denying the averments in the plaint. It is the contention of the defendants that they purchased Ac.0-10 cents of site in RS No.242/4 about 14 years ago and they have not encroached into the site of the plaintiffs. They submit that they have not made constructions of their house by projecting the eaves into the site of the plaintiffs and the plaint plan is not correct and they also filed plan, which is marked as Ex.B2. They submit that in RS No.242/4, the plaintiffs have no site, but the plaintiffs’ site is situated in RS.No.242/5 and they claimed that existing eaves were in the same position since the year 1978, which the plaintiffs have not questioned, thereby they also acquired prescriptive easementary right over them and they have not raised any pial encroaching into the site of the plaintiffs. They also stated that a small hut raised by them on the south-east corner of their site in the year 1978 itself, which is being used as kitchen, wherein the plaintiffs have no right to cl