THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3005 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18.08.2023 passed in C.M.A. No.07 of 2021 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kukatpally in dismissing the same by setting aside the order and decree dated 09.02.2021 in I.A. No.654 of 2020 in O.S. No.504 of 2020 passed by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally.

2. Petitioner/plaintiff herein filed Suit vide O.S.No.504 of 2020 for permanent injunction. Petitioner also filed I.A. No.654 of 2020 in O.S. No.504 of 2020 restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the petitioner/plaintiff’s construction work of renovation of compound wall and erection of gate towards the Eastern side of the suit schedule property. The trail Court considering the documents filed by both sides and arguments and on perusal of advocate commissioner’s report granted status-quo. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred C.M.A. No.07 of 2021. But the trial Court dismissed I.A. No.654 of 2020 and the appellate Court dismissed C.M.A. No.07 of 2021. Against the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The parties herein are referred as petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/defendants as arrayed in trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that as per advocate commissioner’s report, the existing measurements of the compound wall i.e., Eastern side length is 40’ 7’’ against original measurement 40’ and Southern side length is 55’ 7’’ against original measurement 58’, reflects in the registered sale deed vide doc.No.8866 of 1990 and the appellant is extending the Western side compound wall up to 58’ towards the Eastern side i.e., within plot area and as such question of encroaching the public road does not arise at all. At the time of construction, the appellant left 3 feet land towards the South Eastern side but she has not filed the construction plan to prove the same, as the building permission is not in dispute. Ex.P6 is the registered sale deed reflects the four sides plot measurements and existing compound wall measurements are clearly reflected in the advocate commissioner’s report, hence, finding of the 1^st appellate Court that the appellant encroached 7’’ towards South Eastern side is not proper and liable to be set aside the order of the 1^st appellate court.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that she is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.2- 25/2015 on plot No.15 consisting of ground + two floors and pent house admeasuring 267 Sq.yards in Sy.No.97/A situated at Indira Nagar, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (herein after referred as ‘suit schedule property’). The petitioner purchased the open plot bearing No.15 through the registered sale deed bearing document No.8856 of 1990 dated 17.07.1990 from G.Yettaiah. As per the sale deed of the petitioner, the Eastern boundary was shown as neighbors plot and subsequently, the Government laid 10 feet road which became a public passage. At the time of construction of the compound wall toward in the Eastern side of the petition of the petition schedule property as there was an open drainage nala towards the South Eastern side, the petitioner raised the wall by leaving 3’ feet, through the length of the plot on the Southern side was 58’ feet and as such the compound wall was in a diagonal shape. She filed a suit vide O.S. No.1434 of 2009 (Old No.1036 of

2005) and the suit was decreed on 05.07.2013.

6. The petitioner submitted BRS application along with cheque dated 18.07.2008 for Rs.10,000/- towards the charges to the concerned municipality and the same is pending. Since the date of construction, petitioner along with his family members are residing in the said building till this date without any obstruction. There is leftover area in triangle shape from the ro