PUNNAM SATYANARAYANA Vs. VEGESINA NARAYANA RAJU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VEGESINA NARAYANA RAJU
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The defendant appeals against the Judgment of the learned
Subordinate Judge at Narsapur, who on appeal confirmed the decision of the District
Munsif, Bhimavaram, in O.S.No. 52 of 1957, which was laid by the respondent.
The plaintiff and the defendant are owners of adjoining plots of land, the plaintiff's
land being situate to the contiguous west of the land of the defendant. Plaintiff'
purchased the land in 1951 and leased it out to the defendant the same year. He
instituted the suit out of which this Second Appeal arises on 6th March, 1957,
complaining that the defendant encroached upon a portion of his land marked
EFGT in the commissioner's plan, Exhibit A-2, and constructed on it two brick
walls ET and TG. He asked for possession of the land after demolition of these
walls. The other grievance of the plaintiff is that, the defendant, who constructed a
house on his adjoining eastern land, set up hollow pipes on the terrace of that house
and has been discharging water through them on to the western land of the plaintiff's.
(2.) He asked for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to remove those
pipes and also for a permanent injunction to restrain him from letting out water to the
plaintiff's land. The main defence was that, plot EFGT was not trespassed upon,
by the defendant, but belonged to him and that therefore the plaintiff was not
entitled to any of the reliefs claimed including mandatory injunction for removal
of the walls erected there. Regarding the discharge of water by the defendant to
the plaintiff's land it was contended that the suit was barred by limitation.
(3.) The Courts below concurrently found that the defendant built the house on
his land to the immediate east of the plaintiff's land in the year 1948,
that the defendant was not entitled to discharge water from his house to the land of the plaintiff
and that the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction asked for by the plaintiff
regarding the letting out of water to his land was not barred by time. The plaintiff
was therefore granted the relief sought by him on this part of the case. The other
finding of the Court of Appeal below is that, the plot EFGT forms part of the
plaintiff's western land which was leased out to the defendant and that the lease
is current even now. Nevertheless, the Court below granted a decree to the
plaintiff for possession of the plot marked EFGT and also a mandatory injunction
for removal of the walls constructed by the defendant on it. The defendant,
aggrieved by the decisions of the Court below, has approached this Court by way
of Second Appeal to canvass its correctness.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.