In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title and right to the property, which was affirmed by the court based on evidence of joint usage.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, assailing the decree and judgment, dated 30.06.2000, on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, passed in A.S.No.32 of 1997.

02. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant and Sri Srikanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the Respondents/Legal Representatives of the PlaintiffsNo.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.

PLEADINGS:

03. The appellant is the defendant. The respondents No.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The respondents No.3 to 8 who are impleaded as legal representatives of the 1^st plaintiff, who died pending the Second Appeal. The respondents No.9 to 14 are impleaded as legal representatives of the 2^nd plaintiff, who also died pending the Second Appeal. It is pertinent to note down that the suit was filed by the three persons. The 3^rd plaintiff died pending the first appeal. The judgment of the First Appellate Court would disclose that the appeal of the 3^rd plaintiff stands abated, as he died pending the first appeal, but no legal representatives came on record. Hence, the Second Appeal is filed by the defendant showing the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 only as respondents No.1 and 2. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is proceeded with by the defendant against the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 only (represented by their respective legal representatives since they died pending the Second Appeal). The parties in this Second Appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as arraigned in the Original Suit, for convenience and clarity.

04. The suit in O.S.298/1996 on the file of the learned II Addl.District Munsif, Guntur, seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant and her men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule nadava i.e., passage by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.1996. The plaintiffs filed appeal in A.S.32/1997 on the file of the learned IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur, challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.

05. The learned IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur, vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000 allowed the first appeal with costs, and decreed the suit, by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned II Addl.District Munsif, Guntur.

06. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaint schedule property is a joint nadava (passage), for the plaintiffs and defendant located on the eastern side of the defendant’s property, southern side of the 1^st plaintiff’s property and northern side of the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 property, as described in the plaint schedule; The plaintiffs and the defendant are using the plaint schedule property as a joint passage since long time without any interference; They are all in joint possession of the said passage; While so, the defendant with a view to grab the said property, by causing obstruction to the plaintiffs from using the passage; The defendant also making attempt to construct a wall to put a gate way in the joint passage to prevent the plaintiffs from using the said property; the plaintiffs filed a rough sketch along with photos as a part of the plaint showing the disputed property, which was marked as Ex.A-1; photos were marked as Exs.A-2 and A-5 and negatives were marked as Exs.A-3 and A-6 respectively; The plaintiffs to establish that the suit property is a joint passage filed copy of sale deeds, which were marked as Exs.A-7 to A-9 respectively. The documentary evidence would establish that the disputed property is a joint passage. The defendant has no right to obstruct the plaintiffs from using the joint passage; Hence, plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction.

07. The case of the defendant is that she purchased a tiled house situated on the western side of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 06.04.1990 from one Ravip