JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.29 of 2000 dated 05.06.2006.

2. Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.29 of 2000 against the Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department and the Divisional Electrical Engineer, A.P.S.E.B for declaration to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of the suit well which is abutting to Sy.No.266 known as Panumalla Bhavi situated at Gaddiannaram Village, Saroornagar and to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants from causing any sort of interference to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff with the suit well by way of installing any electric transformer or in any manner.

3. Plaintiff stated that he is the owner and possessor of the lands bearing Sy.No.2670/AA, 261, 266 and 268 total admeasuring Acs.5 (cid:150) 35 gts situated at Gaddiannaram village of Saroornagar. There is an agricultural well abutting to Sy.No.266 known as Panumalla Bhavi. The said well is intervened and separated by a Government road which leads to Saroornagar from Gaddiannaram. The well along with appurtenant open land consisting of 621 Sq.yds and it is called as suit land for the sake of convenience. Originally, one Ramulamma mother of the plaintiff is the owner of the said well as well as the agricultural lands. She used to irrigate those lands through the waters of the suit well. Prior to her, her vendor enjoyed the suit well. She constructed pump room and installed electric pump set to lift the water and also erected a pipe line leading to agricultural lands. A.P.S.E.B granted agricultural service connection under V-4005 in favour of Ramulamma in the year 1960 and she was continuously paid electric charges under agricultural category. After her death, plaintiff succeeded the suit well and her lands as her only son and he is continuously enjoying the possession of the suit well. Recently, he constructed a theatre in the part of the agricultural lands and some part of the land is used for agricultural purpose and paying land revenue to the Government regularly. The suit well is presently drained up. As the plaintiff is enjoying possession of the suit well for 42 years, he has perfected his title over the suit well by adverse possession.

4. Plaintiff stated that defendant No.2 under the influence of local political leaders intentionally trying to install an electric transformer in the open land as shown in the Red colour in the sketch plan annexed herein. He has no right whatsoever to cause any sort of interference or install electric transformer in the above land, which is part and parcel of suit well. The suit well is previously being used by the plaintiff as (cid:147)Bavi Gadda(cid:148) and he used to keep his buffalos and cattle in the above land as a cattle shed. When he came to know about the proposed installation of transformer, he filed an application dated 31.12.1999 before defendant No.2 requesting him not to install any electric transformer. The defendant No.2 kept quiet for some days and afterwards again he made his efforts to install the same. On 21.02.2000, he came to the spot along with his subordinates and started digging the open place of suit well. When he questioned defendant No.2, he stated that they got instructions from the defendant No.1, as such at any cost they will install electric transformer. Hence, plaintiff filed suit for declaration and also filed a separate petition to dispense with the notice under Section 80 C.P.C, as there is urgency in the matter.

5. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, he stated that suit itself is not maintainable in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. He stated that there is no dispute with regard to the well known as (cid:147)Panumalla Baavi(cid:148) abutting in Sy.No.266 and the same is demarcated as Biladakala number as per the Revenue Records. He further stated that plaintiff cultivating the lands long back with the water of the suit w