JUDGMENT:

The defendants 2, 4 and 5 are the appellants in the second appeal. The above second appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2020 in A.S.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chittoor, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2013 in O.S.No.211 of 2002 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this judgment are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. Suit O.S.No.211 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 5, their men, servants and other followers in any way obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule properties including ABCD plaint footpath shown in the plaint rough sketch and restraining the defendants 1 to 7 from making the plaint ABCD portion of footpath as plan marked footpath in F.M.B and in other revenue records.

4. In the plaint, it was contended interalia that father of plaintiffs and plaintiffs divided their family properties on 10.10.1998 by way of registered partition deed; that plaint A schedule properties were allotted to the share of 1st plaintiff; that plaint B schedule properties were allotted to the share of 2nd plaintiff; that the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books and title deeds; that on northern and eastern side of plaint schedule properties, 1st defendant has got landed properties and the defendants 2 to 5 are having landed properties on the eastern side of plaint schedule properties; that plaintiffs and 1st defendant for their convenience and enjoyment, left 1½ feet as footpath on ridge, which is shown as ABCD in the rough sketch for the purpose of reaching their fields; that it is not a plan marked footpath and it is absolutely private footpath; that due to Panchayat elections, dispute arose between the plaintiff and 1st defendant; that 1st defendant in collusion with defendants 2 to 5 is making hectic efforts to influence the 6th defendant to create plan marked footpath in ABCD portion shown in rough sketch;

that 2nd plaintiff raised sugarcane crop in plaint B schedule property; that 1st plaintiff ploughed plaint A schedule property in order to raise sugarcane crop; that on 13.03.2002 at about 12 noon, defendants 1 to 5 brought 6th defendant along with Mandal Surveyor to the plaint schedule properties and attempted to create plan marked footpath to the existing footpath of ABCD portion; that the plaintiff thwarted the attempts of defendants; that defendants 2 to 5 attempted to restrain and obstruct the 1st plaintiff from ploughing the plaint A schedule property and eventually, filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra.

5. 1st Defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that plaintiffs and 1st defendant left 1½ feet footpath on the ridge as shown in the rough sketch to reach the lands of plaintiffs and 1st defendant; that it is purely a private footpath meant for use of plaintiffs and 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 5 have no right in it and they never used ABCD footpath. Having supported the case of plaintiffs, 1st defendant prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. 2nd Defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 3 to 5. In the written statement, it was contended interalia that lands of defendant are situated in S.Nos.19/1, 19/2B, 19/3, 19/4B, 19/5 in an extent of Ac.1.33 cents on the eastern side of plaintiffs’ land; that 2nd defendant is also having thatched house in the above said lands and also existing sugarcane crop ready for harvesting etc.; that Rastha shown in the rough plan is situated on the western side of road leading from Perumalla Kandriga village to the forest; that from this rastha there is a cart track leading to the land and house of 2nd defendant and passed through S.Nos.21/5, 22 and 21/4 and it is an ancient one and has been in existence from more than 16 years; that 2nd defendant and pre