The court affirmed the Plaintiffs' easementary rights based on historical use and legal documentation, emphasizing the significance of such rights in property law.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal, under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C'), has been filed by the Appellants/Respondents 1 to 4/Defendants against the Decree and Judgment dated 30.10.2002, in A.S.No.27 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, East Godavari District (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) reversing the decree and Judgment dated 10.09.1998, in O.S.No.82 of 1990 (Old O.S.No.101 of 1988)) on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta (for short, ‘the trial Court’).

2. Respondents 1 to 3 are the Plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.82 of 1990 (Old O.S.No.101 of 1988) seeking a declaration of the easementary right of the plaintiffs on the west of their shops through in-gate and outgate of the bus station for ingress and egress of the Plaintiffs and their men and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from constructing a wall along with shops of the Plaintiffs on the western side.

3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit is practical to mitigate confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

The Plaintiffs filed a plaint plan outlining the location of their property, pathway, the Defendants’ site, and a bus station. The Plaintiffs’ father purchased the land in 1969 through a registered sale deed, and since then, the Plaintiffs and their family have enjoyed the property. Following the father's intestate death in 1981, the Plaintiffs, as his sole legal heirs, have jointly enjoyed the property. To the west of the Plaintiffs’ land is a puntha, classified as a cart track, which was recently given to APSRTC by the Gram Panchayat for a bus station. The lane adjacent to the Plaintiffs' land has been used by them and their predecessors as a right of way for ingress and egress, as reflected in the Revenue Records. The Defendants are bound by this right of way, which also extends to the north and south.

The Plaintiffs obtained approval from the Gram Panchayat to construct a shopping complex on their site. The western side of this complex has been used as a right of way for ingress and egress. However, two days ago, the Defendants attempted to construct a compound wall along the Plaintiffs’ property, which would block this access. The Plaintiffs successfully resisted this construction and were assured by the Defendants that no harm would come to their pathway. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs have reliably learnt that the Defendants intend to proceed with the wall, which would obstruct their right of way.

5. The 1st Defendant filed a written statement, adopted by Defendants 2 to 4, denying the plaint's allegations. They claim the plaint plan is incorrect and does not accurately depict the properties. The Defendants deny the existence of any pathway rights as claimed by the Plaintiffs and dispute the ownership details in the 1969 sale deed. They assert that they were lawfully allotted Ac.0.66 cents in R.S.No.211 and Ac.0.60 cents in R.S.No.212/4.B of Ravulapalem village by the Government, with no objections raised. The Defendants assert that any prior pathway rights were extinguished upon converting agricultural land into residential sites. They further state that constructing a compound wall is necessary to protect the bus station complex, and the Plaintiffs cannot prevent it. The Defendants also assert the suit is defective due to a misjoinder of parties and improper valuation, requesting its dismissal.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

i. Whether the plaint plan is correct?

ii. Whether the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaration of easementary rights of passage as prayed for in the plaint?

iii. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for?

iv. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?

v. Whether the suit is proper