The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the sale deed and partition deed to determine the rights of the parties over the common staircase.

JUDGMENT

1. The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendants questioning the concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below wherein the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction is decreed thereby directing the present appellants to remove the pan shop constructed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the portion of common staircase and a further direction to restore the KEB meters which existed prior to shifting at their own cost.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The respondents/plaintiffs contended that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 along with defendants family members jointly purchased the suit property from erstwhile owner namely one Pushpa Mallikarjuna Reddy in the year 2011 under registered sale deed. The respondents further contended that both the joint purchasers got the property divided under registered partition deed dtd. 9/3/2015. It was specifically contended that the western portion of the property measuring 421 sq.ft. was allotted to the share of plaintiffs whereas eastern portion was allotted to the share of defendants family.Whereas the suit staircase measuring 6ft x 20 ft. was kept as a common staircase/common passage.

3. The grievance of the respondents/plaintiffs was that the present appellant Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 having succeeded to the eastern portion under registered partition deed without any semblance of exclusive right over the suit staircase have illegally constructed pan shop in the portion of a suit staircase and the same is rented to appellant No.5/defendant No.5. In the process, the appellant Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 have also illegally shifted electric meters situated in the first floor and thereby causing interference and obstruction in peaceful usage and enjoyment of respondents/plaintiffs right in the common suit staircase. It is on this ground, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction.

4. On receipt of summons, the present appellant Nos.1 to 4 filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments madein the plaint. However, they admitted the ownership of respondents/plaintiffs over western portion measuring 421 sq.ft. They have specifically contended that the pan shop was in fact constructed by the original owner and the same was rented to appellant No.5/defendant No.5 much prior to purchase made by defendant Nos.1 to 4 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court, having examined oral and documentary evidence and having also taken note of several categorical admissions given by DW.1 in cross-examination, found that there is absolutely no recital in the sale deed of appellant Nos.1 to 4 in Ex.D-7 in regard to existence of pan shop. DW.4 who is the owner of stationery shop has specifically deposed that there was no pan shop under the staircase. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration the recitals in the registered partition deed and in the said partition deed, there is absolutely no reference to existence of a pan shop.

6. While cross-examining PW.1, the learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 to 4 has made a specific suggestion that on account of inconvenience to record reading of electricity meter, the KEB authorities have shifted the meters. Therefore, by making such a suggestion, defendant Nos.1 to 4 during trial have admitted that they have shifted the electric meter which was infact located near the staircase. Having referred to the material evidence on record, Trial Court has come to conclusion that this electric meter was shifted by defendant Nos.1 to 4 only with an ulterior motive to utilize the vacant space for putting up pan shop and thereby defendant Nos.1 to 4 have illegally asserted exclusive right over the common passage which was in fact kept joint