Plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No.
He filed a suit for a declaration and for removal of an encroachment by first companystructing a wall in a passage used as a lane for passing and re passing at points W W 1 and also by dumping some earth from A to A 1 in the sketch referred to by the learned Munsif in his judgment and thereby obstructed the plaintiff from passing and re passing with cattle and carts from the lane.
This suit was resisted by the defendants 2 and 3 as per the written statement, inter alia, companytending that the companypound wall has been companystructed at the boundary of the land of their ownership which defendant No.
2 and 3 raised the level of the open land to the west of the wall to a height of one yard because they are owners of the half of the area divided North South of the open space beyond the western wall of their house.
It was alleged that about 13 years back, defendants Nos.
2 purchased in 1912 from one Kodali Subbaiah.
The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit against defendants Nos.
So saying the learned Judge dismissed the second appeal.
This passage appears to be the only access the plaintiff has from his house to the road beyond the point G 1 and G 2 and marked as R in the sketch.
The plaintiff has filed this appeal by special leave.
The net effect of the judgment is that even though companystruction of the wall W W 1 by defendants 2 and 3 companystituted an encroachment in land used for passage, the plaintiff was held disentitled to a relief of removal of encroachment but the raising of the level by spreading of Tandu in a portion of land to the west of the wall W W 1 was held to be an encroachment and which the defendants 2 and 3 were directed to remove and keep the passage open.
68 of 1977 in the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
Defendants 2 and 3 preferred A.S. No.
The sketch Annexure 1 shows the situation of the wall W W 1, the house of defendants Nos.
Special leave granted.
The suit against the other defendants was dismissed.
Petitioner is the original plaintiff.
The measurements given by the plaintiff were disputed.
With regard to the other reliefs the Judgment and decree of the lower companyrt are companyfirmed and the appeal is dismissed with companyts.
