K.N. Phaneendra, J. - (1.) THE present second appeal is preferred by the aggrieved plaintiff who succeeded before the trial Court in O.S. No. 196/1996 on the file of the Munsiff at Bidar and filed before the First Appellate Court i.e. Fast Track Court -IV Bidar in R.A. No. 176/2004.
(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience and easy understanding I would like to refer the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the trial Court. The plaintiff Shankerappa filed a suit against three defendants by name Sharnappa, Vaijinath and Shantappa for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the house property bearing its No. 1 -72 situated at Village Gornalli, Taluka Bidar along with its open space and right to use the common passage as shown in the sketchmap having specific boundaries and also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit house, open space and also common passage.
(3.) THE exposition of the facts as per plaintiff are that, the plaint is the owner and possessor of the house bearing No. 1 -72 and plaintiff has acquired the house bearing No. 1 -72 comprising of 4 rooms and also having open space towards eastern side, from his ancestors. It is alleged that fore -fathers of the plaintiff have been using the common passage to pass through and reach the main road of the village and plaintiff and his family members have been enjoying their house, open space and also the common passage, which is measuring 4 feet width situated in front of the house of the first defendant. It is further contended that the defendants who are neighbours of the plaintiff being intentionally restraining the plaintiff and his family members from passing through the common passage and in the open space. The defendants have also interfered with the open space of the plaintiff without any right title, interest or possession over the said portion and they made attempts to close that common passage by covering with thorn fencing etc. The plaintiff has been using the said common passage for the purpose of tethering their cattle's, storing the fodder and keeping the agricultural implements in the open space. In spite of repeated request the defendants did not desist themselves from interference. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the above said reliefs.;