THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Second Appeal No.491 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri C. Avani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. The second appeal is preferred by the appellants/ appellants/defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Peddapalli in A.S.No.81 of 2022 (Old A.S.No.5 of 2019), dated 02.09.2025 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli in O.S.No.74 of 2019, dated

30.10.2017.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming that the defendants were raising electric poles in the southern side of the suit schedule property consisting of suit land admeasuring Ac.0.25 Gts., in Sy.No.739 situated towards western side of Karimnagar road, Peddapali Village and Mandal. The plaintiff claims to be owner and possessor of suit schedule property having succeeded to Ac.0.25 Gts. of land from his father who was owner of Ac.1.10 Gts. of land in Sy.No.739. The remaining Ac.0.25 Gts. was succeeded by his brother. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 have lands towards southern side of suit land. The defendant Nos.7 and 8 are official defendants from Electricity Department. Without any right over the suit schedule property, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 tried to erect electric poles by encroaching towards southern side of suit land with the help of defendant Nos.7 and 8. Said efforts were resisted and suit for perpetual injunction is filed.

5. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 denied ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and claimed ownership and possession over Ac.0.11 Gts. of land in Sy.No.740. The Sy.Nos.739 and 740 are situated adjacent to each other and the respective parties have constructed houses in their land. The Sy.No.740 starts from Rajiv Rahadari towards western side to the house of defendant Nos.1 to 6 and they do not have any approach to their houses. The approach road was in existence for the past ten years. The Transco authorities sanctioned power supply to the house of Kola Sujatha whose house is situated towards western side of house of defendant No.2. The plaintiff has no right to interfere with said approach road and the electric poles are laid in the approach road. The Transco authorities have already erected electric poles in the house of defendant Nos.1 to 6 towards southern side of the way. The defendants have their land about six feet from electric poles towards northern side. The surveyor has conducted survey and demarcated the land in Sy.Nos.739 and 740 on account of objection raised by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, there is no cause of action and therefore, sought dismissal of the suit.

6. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and one Gaddala Srinivas as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A9. The defendants got examined DWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6. Upon examining the evidence of both the parties, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding as follows:

“13. ….. the defendants No.1 to 6 do not have three wire electrical connection, the defendants No.7 and 8 tried to erect poles for such purpose in the land of plaintiff as there are already poles existing in front of defendants No.1 to 6 houses. Therefore, the version of defendants No.1 to 6 about presence of poles is true, but the said new work had been taken up for three wire connection which the defendants No.1 to 6 have been cleverly suppressing by denying their need for new connection.”

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, A.S.No.81 of 2022 is preferred before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff has title and possession over the suit schedule property whereas the defendants do not have even easementary right to use the la