APHC010076961994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 1585/1994 Between:

L. Atchamma ...APPELLANT AND The A P State Transport Corpn and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant: 1. 1605/VL N G K MURTHY

2. .

3. K.V.S.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. M V SURESH The Court made the following:

Reserved on 21.04.2026 Pronounced on 06.05.22002266: APHC:19263 Uploaded on 06.05.2026 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.1585 of 1994

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 12.09.1994, in O.S.No.117 of 1988 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari, [for short ‘the trial Court’].

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff, and the respondents herein are the defendants. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant died, and appellant Nos.2 to 6 were added as legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant No.1.

3. Originally, the appellant/plaintiff herein filed the suit in O.S.No.117 of 1988 against the defendants, seeking to declare the plaintiff’s right, title, and interest to the extent of Ac.0.48 cents as per the plaint plan and schedule, and direct defendant No.1 or its representatives, employees, agents, to deliver to the plaintiff vacant possession of the plaint schedule property marked as ‘A, B, C, D’, and direct the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to suitably revise or amend the layout submitted by the plaintiff to defendant No.2 by excluding the plaint schedule property from it and carry out necessary and suitable alterations; and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their representatives, agents, employees, etc., from carrying out any construction or interfering in any manner with the plaint schedule property, and to direct defendant No.1 and whoever happens to be in occupation of the plaint schedule property to pay the future profits to be ascertained in an enquiry, together with costs.

4. Both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff as per the plaint averments in O.S.No.117 of 1988, in brief, is as follows:

I. The plaint schedule land, to an extent of Ac.0.31 cents, is part of the total extent of Ac.8.12 cents purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1956, and ever since the purchase, the entire extent has been bounded by a hedge, over which the hedge plants have been grown. The plaintiff pleaded that at the time of purchase, the land was got measured on the ground and found to be with the extent noted in the registered sale deed. The plaintiff further pleaded that she used to lease out her land, to an extent of Ac.8.12 cents, which includes the plaint schedule extent, for raising tobacco seedlings every year, which has been done by the plaintiff from 1977 to 1983, and that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till defendant No.1 occupied the said property in the year 1984. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No.1 purchased the adjoining land to the plaint schedule land to its south on 07.01.1981, after which the agents of defendant No.1, while carrying on the leveling operation in the own land of defendant No.1, demolished the boundary hedge lying in the land of the plaintiff demarcating the plaint schedule land.

II. The plaintiff further pleaded that the watchman engaged by the plaintiff in her land abstained from attending to work for about three (03) months and finally absconded without intimation to the plaintiff; as such, the plaintiff could not notice the encroachment into the plaint schedule land on the part of defendant No.1. The plainti