IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: CHITTOOR.
Present:- Smt. S.Sailaja, III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.
Wednesday, the 29th day of November, 2017.
O.S.NO.644/2007
S.Govinda Reddy, S/o Sidda Reddy, hindu, aged 56 years, cultivation, residing at Eguva Thavanampalle Village, Thavanampalle mandal, Chittoor District.
... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1.Reddeppa Reddy, S/o Muni Reddy, aged 40 years, Hindu, cultivation
2.C.Yugandhar Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged 50 years
Nos.1 and 2 are residing at Eguva Thanamkpalle Village, Thavanampalle Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.
3.The State rep. by District Collector, Chittoor. (Defendants No.2 and 3 added as per Order in IA.620 of 2012 dt.22.12.2012)
4.J.Dinesh, S/o J.Krishnamurthy Reddy, aged about 31 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at D.No.22-2671/A, Lawyer’s colony, Kattamanchi, Chittoor.
(No.4 is added as per Orders in IA.No.214 of 2017, dt.19.7.2017) …Defendants.
This suit is coming on 27-11-2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
N.Kesavulu Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri V.Ramanaraya Reddy, Advocate for defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Government Pleader for defendant No.3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration seeking the right of way through plaint schedule cart track and grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 4, their men and agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s right of way through plaint schedule cart track by causing any obstruction over the same are meddling over the same.
02. The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:
Plaintiff submits that plaint schedule mentioned property is cart track with a width of 12 feet and length of 100 feet. This cart track is existence since several decades for more than 60 years for the purpose of taking cart, tractor, lorries to carry manure, sugar cane etc. to the field of plaintiff prior to him his predecessor in title from the village.
He owns his lands in S.Nos.373, 372 and land in S.No.290/1 in village site poramboke and
S.No.290/2 belongs to defendant. The plaint schedule cart track shown in sketch ABC.
This cart track runs from East-West to North-South passing through the land of defendant in S.No.290/2 partly on North-West corner. There arose village factions due to recent elections and defendant developed ill feelings towards plaintiff and wants to cause wrongful loss and damage and harass the plaintiff. The defendants high-handedly attempted to close cart track running through his land to prevent access to the plaintiff to reach his lands. Plaintiff has no other way to reach his land except the plaint schedule cart track. Hence, plaintiff and neighbours stopped the defendant from erecting any fencing across the plaint schedule cart track. He and his predecessor in title have perfected their right of easement over plaint schedule cart track by using the same un- interruptedly for more than 60 years to the knowledge of the defendant and his men. The defendant has no manner of right to cause obstruction to plaintiff from using the cart track shown as ABC. Hence, the suit.
03.The averments of the written statement filed by defendant No.1 are as follows:
He denied the allegations made against him by the plaintiff in the plaint and further submitted that alleged cart track never in existence at any point of time and it is an imaginary one. As per revenue records there is no any alleged cart track in
S.No.290/1, 290/2 and 373. The rough sketch field by plaintiff is created for the purpose of filing of the suit with wrong physical features. There is no alleged cart track touching his lands at any point of time. There is a ridge with green grass at the northern side of his land in S.No.290/2 since time immemorial. Further north there is a foot path with a width of about 1 ½ feet to go to the fields of villagers and on northern side of above foot path there is a yetu Kalva which is in existence since time immemorial and further north of Yetu Kalva there is a land of plaintiff. The land of plaintiff and yetu kalva are equal in level which are 3 to 4 feet from any level than his lands in S.No.290/2 and foot path there is no possibility to take lorries, tractors and bullock cart through the above said foot path as such the claim of the plaintiff is an imaginary one. Plaintiff or his predecessors have no manner of right and title over the suit property and there is no any alleged cart track at any point of time and as such claiming right by way of easement does not arise.
Admittedly plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the alleged cart track existing at any point of time. The plaintiff has no right to claim his land to use as a cart track. Prior to filing of the suit plaintiff insisted him to sell the land in S.NO.290/2 but he agree for the same so the plaintiff bore grudge against him and filed suit with false allegations with an intention to create trouble to him. Further Defendant No.1 submitted that there is a ponnai river on north side of plaintiffs land and there is a malapalle in
S.Nos.291 and 292 etc., from Malapalle to Ponnai river on the Northern side of the village.
The plaintiff used the said cart track and also Ponnai river to reach his lands to carry green manure, harvesting crop etc. Therefore, there is an alternative cart track to reach the plaintiffs land as stated above but the plaintiff suppressed about the existence of cart track and also he is using the same and filed false suit. Advocate commissioner also visited the suit schedule property and filed his report and sketch one sidedly by following the rough sketch filed by the plaintiff and its physical features. The Advocate commissioner also suppressed the fact that the cart track is in existence as stated above.
He also filed rough sketch in the suit locality. There is no cart track point B to D as alleged in the rough sketch at any point of time as such the claim of plaintiff is baseless.
The plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands and he is not entitled to claim any relief. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
04. The brief averments of the written statement filed by defendant No.2 are as follows:
He denied the allegations made against him by the plaintiff in the plaint. The 1st defendant sold Ac.1.39 cents in S.No.290/2 under a registered sale deed dt.22.2.2012 to him and he corroborated the version of 1st defendant in his written statement. He has impleaded in the above suit in the year 2012 five years after filing of the above suit with an intention to black mail him because he purchased from 1st defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
05.The brief averments of the written statement filed by defendant No.3 are as follows:
He admitted the part of allegations mentioned by the plaintiff in plaint. Further he submitted that not only the plaintiff but also villagers are using the cart track situated in the suit schedule survey number and the land in S.No.290/1 an extent of Ac.3.86 cents is classified as village site pormaboke and a vanka passing West-East by this land. On the
Northern side of the village site there is a vanka kalva is passing towards West to East.
The Defendant No.1 has got patta land in S.No.290/2 which is situated Southern side of existing kaluva he has occupied a portion of Kaluva poramboke. This kalva is being used as cart track by the villagers of Eguva Thavanampalle to go to their patta fields. Plaintiff has got patta land in S.No.372 situated towards northern side of Kalva. Due to some ill feelings the 1st defendant has objected plaintiff to pass through the kalva poramboke which is under his occupation. During enquiry Defendant No.1 has agreed to allow the cart track in the existing kalva poramboke to go to the patta fields of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the problem has been sorted out. The dispute between the plaintiff and defendant solved and defendant provided cart track to the plaintiff and other villagers to reach their lands peacefully. Not only 1st defendant even plaintiff has no right to cause obstruction in using the cart track by the villagers to reach their lands since the matter is amicably solved between the plaintiff and the defendant. There is no need to contest the suit as the suit property is government lands and pertaining to the cart track using by public. Further he submitted that after thorough inspection the submissions of defendant
No.1 and plaintiff are recorded he is enclosing sketch showing the cart track running in the water channel and also in S.NO.290 and also he filed statements of plaintiff and 1st defendant recorded by VRO on 30.10.2014. The plaintiff cannot seek declaration of right of way through plaint schedule property since the suit survey numbers are not reserved for public cart track and there is no separate demarcation on ground with regard to said cart track. The relief of demarcation cannot be granted against him pertaining the lands belongs to him. The plaintiff cannot claim exclusive relief for declaration to the suit cart track which is meant for public. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
06.The brief averments of the written statement filed by Defendant No.4 are as follows:
He denied the allegations made against him by the plaintiff in the plaint and stated the same lines stated by 1st defendant in his written statement. Plaintiff has no right to claim alleged imaginary cart track in S.No.290/1 belongs to 1st defendant and S.No.290/2 is his patta and the 1st defendant is looking after the above said property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
07.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:
1.Whether there is a path way since time immemorial?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration of right of easementary in their favour with respect to suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction in his favour?
5. To what relief?
08.During the course of trial plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A4 are marked through him and Ex.A5 marked through DW1 and Ex.A6 marked through
DW3. One 3rd party examined as PW2 on behalf of plaintiff. On the other hand, 1st defendant examined himself as DW1 and Exs.B2 and B3 are marked on his behalf and
Ex.B1 marked through PW1. DWs 2 and 3 examined on behalf of defendants.
09. Heard on both sides. Perused the suit records.
10. ISSUE No.1 : Whether there is a path way since time immemorial?
A. To prove his case the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and he reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief examination affidavit and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. Ex.A1 is the plaint plan, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt.25.12.1994 executed by T.Ram Mohan Reddy in his favour, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt.22.2.2012 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and Ex.A4 is certified copy of 1-B namuna issued by Tahsdildar, Thavanampalle Mandal. During the cross examination, he admitted that he did not produce any documents to show his right from
S.No.290/1 to S.No.373. The defendants are owners of land in S.NO.290/2. The defendants did not execute any document in his favour in respect of any portion of land in S.No.290/2. Ex.A2 relating to S.No.272 and 373 and there is no mention about the suit cart track and also Ex.A3. In Ex.A4 there is no mention of suit cart track northern side to the land in S.No.290/2 there is kalva but there is no vanka. In plaint sketch he has not mention that there is a vanka at the Northern side of land in S.No.290/2. Before purchasing land under Ex.A2 he has no landed properties around ExA2 properties.
Eastern side and Western side to his lands are cultivable lands and the above said eastern side and western side his lands there is no cart track. Eastern side to his lands there is malapalle and between their village and malapalle there are cultivable lands there is road from his village to Malapalle. Malapalle is situated Eastern side to his village.
After his lands there is a river and the said river is running from West to East. The land in
S.No.371 is situated in between his land and the said river. The said land is not belongs to him. The road which is running from Malapalle passing the river towards Karakampalle
Village. The road is in existence since his child hood. The land shown in photos belongs to 1st defendant. The said photos marked Ex.B1 along with CD. There is an existence of foot path on the Northern side of land in S.No.290/2 up to the fields of others. The width of said foot path is 3 feet. There is no ridge in between the foot path and the land in
S.No.290/2. In second time he took the commissioner to the disputed property and commissioner did not measure the disputed property as there was sugar cane crop. He did not pay any remuneration to the 2nd commissioner. He does not know what objection was filed by defendant No.1 for the report filed by 1st commissioner. No photos were taken by the 1st commissioner. The 1st commissioner visited the disputed property and no surveyor was present. The river which is running North side to his land is in existence since his age of discretion except the sketch Ex.A1 he did not file any document to show the existence of alleged cart track and he constructed house in S.No.290/1 and after filing of the suit warming ceremony of the said house was held. There is no election dispute between them at any point of time. There is no record to show his vendor having any right over the alleged suit cart track and there is no fencing on the Northern side of the land of defendant No.1 except the foot path. He has seen sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 with regard to his properties and in the said sale deed there is no said cart track mentioned. He has house at Eguva Thavanampalle.
Further he denied the suggestions.
B. PW2 T. Krishnamohan Reddy 3rd party to the suit proceedings. He stated the same lines in his chief which is stated by the plaintiff. During cross examination he deposed no details of suit property are their ancestral properties and the same was sold by them to plaintiff. There is no revenue record or registered documents to show that he has right over S.No.290/1 and 290/2 properties. He knows the boundaries of suit properties the cart track starts from south-western Sivalayam found leading through
North - East site the cart track leading towards East, Northern side panta kalva, Southern side land of defendant No.1 through the same portion of said land the cart track is running. For the cart track running even the said boundaries the plaintiff has field the suit. In 1994 he sold his property to Thyagaraja Reddy. He did not sell any property to plaintiff. His brother Ramamohan Reddy sold land to plaintiff but he did not remain the survey number of the property. The suit cart track was not shown in said sale deeds.
Northern side of Panta Kalva lands of plaintiff are situated. Ponnai river is running towards the Northern side of the land sold by C.Thyagaraju. The lands of plaintiff situated towards South of said land. The plaintiff having about Ac.2-00 of land towards north of
Panta kalva. There is no cart track inside Ac.2-00 cents of lands as well as AC.7-00 cents of land possessed by them. There is road from their village to Malapalle Harijanawada.
The said road is leading up to Ponnai river. About Ac.20-00 cents of cultivable lands are situated towards west of plaintiffs land. Vendor of Ex.A2 is also residing in their village.
The width of Pantakalva is about 4 feet, water is not flowing to the lands of defendant
No.1 from the said panta kalva since lands of 1st defendant is situated about ½ feet-1 feet higher level than panta kalva. The alleged cart track is not mentioned either in village map or FMB. The plaintiff has no right over th lands in S.No.290/2 which belongs to defendant No.1 but the plaintiffs have right over the cart track passing through the said land. The plaintiff did not purchase any right from the 1st defendant over the said cart track. The land in S.No.290/2 except the cart track belonging to the family of defendant
NO.1. Lands in S.No.290/2 is cultivable lands and his ancestors did not purchase any property in S.No.290/2. He does not know whose lands has situated to the East of lands in S.No.290/2. There is no ridge in between the Panta kalva and the lands of Defendant
No.1. Ex.B1 not pertaining to S.No.290/2 coconut trees and mango trees are available in
S.No.290/2. There are no groups in is village Padmavathi contesting Sarpanch elections in the year 2006 in his village. One baby relative of 1st defendant was the opposing candidate. Defendant No.1 supporting the opposite candidate Baby. After election minor disputes took place. Further he denied the suggestions.
C. 1st defendant himself examined as DW1 and he reiterated the contents of his written statement in his chief examination affidavit and Exs.B2, B3 were marked. Ex.B2 is combined sketch with respect to suit survey number and adjoining survey number of lands and Ex.B3 is rough sketch filed by the defendant. During cross examination he admitted that total extent in S.No.290/1 is government land, there is kalva in S.No.290/1 the width of Kalva is 16 links. According to advocate commissioner report the cart track is shown to the North-West corner in S.No.290/2 and the land of plaintiff is situated in
S.No.372 and 373. There is no plan marked cart track at Harijanawada to Ponnai river except the suit mentioned cart track there is no other cart track to the lands of plaintiff.
He adds there is a path way but pathway situated in S.No.290/1. The path way is abutting to his land in S.No.290/2. The plaintiff filed an application before the District
Collector and Tahsildar stating that he has obstructed the passage of plaintiff and the
Tahsildar visited the schedule property and made enquiry and also recorded his statement. The xerox copy of statement identified and admitted him which is marked as
Ex.A5. The original of it is with the Tahsildar. There is no plan marked cart track at
Harijanawada to Ponnai river except the suit mentioned cart track there is no other cart track to the lands of plaintiff. He stated before Tahsildar that he has no objection to lay cart track in S.No.290/1 at Kalva. He knows plaintiff since his child hood. He has been doing cultivation. Baby Kumari is his relative and she contented panchayat election and she has lost the election and further he denied the suggestions.
D. DW2 who is 3rd party to the suit proceedings and he deposed in his chief as stated by DW1. During his cross examination he deposed that there are criminal cases held between themselves and plaintiff. 1st defendant is son of paternal aunt. Poramboke land in S.No.290/1 is situated to the Western side of defendants land. He adds that it is in the possession of 1st defendant. There is patta in respect of the poramboke land in
S.No.290/1 in favour of sister of 1st defendant. The dispute is at point D to C in the sketch filed by advocate commissioner in IA.510 of 2007 and there is no dispute in respect of the other part of cart track shown in Advocate commissioner's sketch. There is land of
Thyagaraju abutting to Ponnai river and that land of plaintiff is existed. He does not know revenue authorities visited the suit schedule property and recorded statements of villagers along with the plaintiff and defendant. Again he adds that the revenue authorities visited the suit schedule property and observed the property. He did not remember the survey numbers through the cart track is passing and he knows the suit property but he does not know the survey numbers. He knows how the plaintiff acquired the lands in suit survey numbers and he has knowledge of the suit lands and they belong to plaintiff. Further he denied the suggestions.
E. DW3 who is 3rd party deposed in chief as stated by DW1. During his cross examination he deposed that the total extent in S.No.290/2 is an extent of Ac.1.39 cents he does not know total extent in S.No.290/1. The notice dt.13.11.2007 shown to witness he admitted the then Tahsildar of Thavanampalle issued notice to him and the same is received by him. Ex.A6 is notice dt.13.11.2007 issued by Tahsildar of Thavanampalle.
Inspite of notice he did not mention in his chief affidavit about measurements of cart track. He does not know survey number of cart track way leads on East side Malapalle which he referred in his chief examination to the Northern side of Ponnai river. The lands of Thyagaraja Reddy was situated and there was a plan marked road mentioned in his chief affidavit to the North of S.No.290/2 there was a kalva still today. The said Kalva does not situate any patta land again he adds that said Kalva provided for irrigation and he does not know the extent of said kalva and admitted criminal case pending between him and plaintiff. Plaintiff sold land in S.No.290/2 to two persons by name Yugandhar Reddy and Dinesh Reddy. He knows about the documents of said sale deeds. He does not know the boundaries shown in above said sale deeds. Further he denied the suggestions.
F. During arguments, the learned counsel for Plaintiff argued that his contentions were supported by the evidences of PW.2 and DW.1 who admitted that except the suit mentioned cart track there is no other cart track to the lands of plaintiff. Even DW.1 admitted Ex.A.5. There is no alternative cart track towards northern side of plaintiff's land. Which is also admitted by DW.1. The plaintiff established his prima facie case.
The learned counsel for Plaintiff relied up on the decision reported in 2010(2) ALD 60 (SC) in case of Sree Swayam Prakash Ashramam and another V/S G.Anandavally
Amma and others, it was held that the trial court on consideration of evidence of both the parties recorded the finding that there was no evidence on record to show that either
Yogini Amma or the defendants themselves until 1982 had objected to the plaintiff’s use of ‘B’ schedule pathway to access ‘A’ schedule property. The trial court on consideration of the plaintiff’s evidence and when the defendant had failed to produce any evidence, had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was given right of easement by Yogini
Amma as an easement of grant. Considering this aspect of the matter, although there is no specific issue on the question of implied grant, but as the parties have understood their case and for the purpose of proving and contesting implied grant had adduced evidence, the trial court and the High Court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had acquired a right of easement in respect of ‘B’ schedule pathway by way of implied grant. Such being the position, we are not in position to upset the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, in exercise of our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India. It is true that the defendant/appellant alleged that no implied grand was pleaded in the plaint. The trial court, in or view, was justified in holding that such pleadings were not necessary when it did not make a difference to the finding arrived at with respect to the easement by way of grant.
G. The learned counsel for Defendant Nos 1,2 and 4 filed written arguments by reiterating the contents of written statements and further argued that plaintiff failed to prove that vendors of plaintiff's used suit cart track since time immemorial. Even though
Ex.A.5 marked, it can not be considered as evidence. There is no land marked cart track as stated by the plaintiff through the land of defendants and there is an alternative cart track towards northern side of plaintiff's land. Path way shown in Ex.B.1 was admitted by
PW.1, which is only foot path. The plaintiff failed to prove his contentions and is not discharge his burden.
The learned counsel for Defendant Nos 1,2 and 4 relied up on the decision reported in 2017 (5) ALT 178 in case of Nurukurthi Solman Raju V/S Nurukurthi Veera Lakshmi, it was held that a Photostat copy cannot be received as secondary evidence and because the document is filed along with the plaint, no authenticity can be attached to such document since Photostat copy is inadmissible.
H. The plaintiff contention is that the suit cart track is situated since time immemorial. On other hand the Defendant Nos 1,2 and 4 were denied the same. So the burden is heavily up on the plaintiff to prove his contention. To support his contention he himself examined as PW.1 and examined PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to 6 were marked on his behalf. During cross examination PW1 admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that suit cart track is in existence since time immemorial. There is no mention about suit cart track in Exs.A2 and A3. As per written statement of Defendant No.3, he admitted that plaintiff and villagers are using cart track situated in the suit schedule survey numbers and also submitted the dispute is solved and that the defendants provided cart track to the plaintiff and villagers to reach their lands peacefully. During cross examination DW.1 has also admitted Ex.A5 and in the said document DW.1 stated that he obstructed the plaintiff through his lands as there is no plan marked rasta in
S.No.290/1. Why because S.No.290/2 is patta land. Further he encroaches gramakantam land in S.No.290/1 here itself he agreed to give piece of land to lay cart track. With regard to said aspect, Defendant No.3 stated that Defendant No.1 encroaching gramakantam land. With respect to this no explanations were given by the DW.1 and kept silent. So it clears that Defendant No.1 encroaching Gramakantam land. As per commissioner's report in IA.510 of 2007 filed on 17.7.2007, the suit cart track is old one it passed through up to the lands of plaintiff which particularly passed through the land of defendant on North-
West corner to a width of five feet. As per commissioner's report IA.237 of 2012 filed on 19.4.2017 cart track running from village i.e., point B to C width of 12 feet which reduces to 5 feet at point C, E to D there is two path way forms a single path way towards East at point D shown in sketch. The photographs filed by advocate commissioner and defendants are shown the cart track is old one. But the width of cart track is not tallied with the commissioner's report, sketch of plaintiff, plaintiff not even filed objections that measurements of commissioner's sketch are not correct. DW2 admitted that there is no dispute in respect of other part of cart track shown in advocate commissioner's report in
IA.510 of 2007 except D to C shown corner of North-West of 1st defendant’s land.
I. As per above discussion it clears that there is cart track situated suit survey numbers since long time. The decision relied up on by the plaintiff's counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case in hand. The decision relied up on by the defendant's counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case in hand. As in the present case DW.1 himself admitted Ex.A.5 and also stated original of it is in the office of Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.3 has also stated the same in his written statement. The contention of plaintiff supported the evidences of
PW.2 and DW.1 and 2, except width of path way. As per supra, this court concludes that the suit cart track is old one and using since time immemorial. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
11. ISSUE NO.2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration of right of easementary in their favour with respect to suit schedule property?
As per contention of defendants there is alternative way to reach plaintiff's land as per evidence of Pws 1 and 2, there is no other cart track except suit cart track. This aspect was admitted by DW1 during his cross examination that except suit mentioned cart track there is no other cart track to the land of plaintiff. The admission of DW1 itself shows there is no alternative way to plaintiff to reach his lands except suit cart track. As per written statement of Defendant No.3 and admissions of PW1 and suit records shows the cart track passed through grama kantam land S.No.290/1 which is Kalva, the said kalva is used as cart track. Hence, no declaration has to be granted in favour of plaintiff for using cart track through grama kantam land /Kalva and lands of Defendant No.1.
Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
12. ISSUE NOs.3 AND 4 :
3.Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
AND
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction in his favour?
A. As per contention of defendant is land situated in S.No.290/1 and S.No.290/2 is in possession and enjoyment of 1 st defendant. But in cross examination DW.1 admitted that total extent in S.No. 290/1 is government land. The 1 st defendant contention is that there was ridges around his land and foot path way exists through his land. Ex.B.1 shows the same. In his cross examination he admitted suit cart track, it is contra to his pleadings. Even PW.2 deposed during cross examination that there is no ridge in between the Panta kalva and the lands of defendant No.1. as well as in commissioner's report and sketch and photos not shown the ridge in between the Panta kalva and the lands of defendant No.1.
B. As per discussion in issues no. 1 and 2, and admissions of DW1 except the suit cart track there is no other way to go to lands of plaintiff. This court concludes that the plaintiff proved his prima facie case and he used suit cart track to reach his lands though the width of way is not supported by the report of advocate commissioner, the photos shows the path way is to use of bullock carts but not possible to go of four wheelers. The plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction. Therefore, these issues are answeed in favour of plaintiff.
13. ISSUE NO.5 : To what relief ?
In the result, the suit is partly dismissed with respect to declaration of easementary rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule cart track and the suit is partly decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 4, their men and agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s right of way through plaint schedule cart track by causing any obstruction over the same and meddling with the same.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open
court, on this the 29th day of November, 2017.
III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class FAC Principle Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined for:
Plaintiff:Defendants:
PW-1: S.Govinda ReddyDW1: Reddappa Reddy
PW-2: T.Krishnamohan ReddyDW2: J.Subramanyam Reddy
DW3: S.Ravindra Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED: Plaintiff:
Ex.A1 : Plaint plan
Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.25.12.1994 executed by T.Ram Mohan Reddy in favour of plaintiff
Ex.A3: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.22.2.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant NO.2
Ex.A4: Certified Copy of 1-B namuna issued by Tahsildar, Thavanampalle Mandal.
Ex.A5: Xerox Copy of statement of witness.
Ex.A6: Notice dt.13.11.2007 issued by Tahsildar of Thavanampalle.
Defendants:
Ex.B1: Photos (2 Nos) with CD
Ex.B2: Combined sketch with respect to suit survey number and adjoining survey number of lands
Ex.B3: Rough Sketch filed by the defendant.
III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.
Fair Judgment in
OS.644 of 2007 dt.29.11.2017