APHC010175162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL NO: 362 OF 2025 Between: 1. KONAKALA VENKATESWARA RAO, ADOPTED S/O. VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.3-83/1, CHERUKUPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR (BAPATLA) DISTRICT. 2. KONAKALA VENKATESWARAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.3-83/1, CHERUKUPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR (BAPATLA) DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. ANAGANI INDIRA, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 1-98, THOTAPALLI VILLAGE, NAGARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR (BAPATLA) DISTRICT 2. KONAKALA DAMODARA RAO, S/O. RAMA MONAHA RAO, HINDU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR NO.8- 1-666, SEETHANAGA, SHAIKPETA, HYDERABAD, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. D BALAKRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.249 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Repalle, filed the present Second Appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 in Appeal Suit No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Repalle, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 3) For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 4) Succinctly the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.249 of 2014 is that the 1st plaintiff is the owner of the 1st item of the plaint schedule wet land (P1 plot and 2nd plaintiff is the owner of the 2nd item of the plaint schedule wet land-P2 plot) and enjoying the same with absolute rights. The 1st defendant is the owner of the D and D3 plot wet land as shown in the plaint plan and there is Panta Bode (Field channel) on the southern side abutting to D plot wet land of the 1st defendant, the wet lands of the plaintiffs are cultivated with irrigation water from Y, Y1, Y2 panta bode and that the same is in existence since more than 50 years. The second item of the plaint schedule wet land (P2 plot) as shown in the plaint plan and D, D1, D2 and D3 plots (wet lands) belongs to Vicharapu Lakshmi Devamma and she executed a Registered Will dated 29.09.1975 bequeathing the second item of plaint schedule wet land (P2 plot) to the 2nd plaintiff by reserving right to the lifetime enjoyment to her paternal grandfather Krishna Murthy, which is shown as E schedule in the said Will and she 3 bequeathed D and D3 plots wet lands to one Konakala Veeraiah, adopted father of the 1st defendant. She bequeathed D1 and D2 plots wet land to the sons of Konakala Rama Rao by reserving the lifetime enjoyment rights to Ramarao and the land is shown as “C” schedule in the said Will. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Smt. Lakshmi Devamma died about 30 years ago and the said Will came into operation after her death as the said Will is last testament, D and D3 plot wet lands were devolved on the 1st defendant after the death of his adopted father Veeraiah by succession and D1 and D2 plots wet lands devolved on Konakala Gurunadam and Srinivasa Rao after the death of their father Konakala Ramarao. The 2nd item of the plaint schedule land (P2 Plot) devolved upon the 2nd plaintiff and he has been cultivating the same with irrigation water from Y, Y1, Y2 Pant bode since 30 years and the 1st plaintiff purchased Item No.1 of the plaint schedule land with right to draw irrigation water through Y, Y1, Y2 panta bode from Amruthaluru Venkata Subbamma and others vide Registered Sale Deed dated 19.05.1995 and after purchase of the same, he has been cultivating the said land with irrigation water drawn from Y, Y1, Y2 panta bode. It is also their case that the existence of the said Y, Y1, Y2 panta bode was recited in the Will of Vicharapu Lakshmi Devamma as also in the sale deed of the 1st plaintiff. However, due to the dispute that arose between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant, with an evil intention to harass the plaintiffs, the defendants highhandedly closed Y, Y1 panta bode portion with earth. So, pleading that if the earth carted in Y Y1 panta bode portion is not removed, it is very difficult for the defendant to cultivate the 4 plaint schedule lands, that the defendants have no right to close the panta bode, the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore Y, Y1 Pant Bode portion was sought apart from permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from obstructing the flow in any manner whatsoever to the said panta bode to the plaint schedule lands as otherwise the plaint land would become barren. 5) The 1st defendant filed his written statement and the 2nd defendant adopted the same. While stating that Y, Y1 panda bode was never in existence, they denied that the plaintiffs never draw water through the alleged panta bode to their lands, restoration of Y, Y1 panta bode will not arise as no panta bode existed at any point of time and that the plaintiffs are not entitled for grant of permanent injunction, much less mandatory injunction, they pleaded for dismissal of the suit. 6) Learned trial Court formulated the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, relatives from obstructing the flow of water through „Y Y1 Y2‟ panta bode to the paint schedule property as shown in the plaint plan? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to restore „Y Y1‟ panta bode portion in suit Y Y1 Y2 as mentioned in the plaint plan? 4. To what relief? 7) In support of the plaintiffs case got examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. On behalf of the defendants DWs 1 to 4 were examined and no documentary evidence was marked. 5 8) The Advocate Commissioner‟s report, rough plan of Advocate Commissioner and rough plan of Mandal Surveyor were marked as Exs.C1, C2 and C3 respectively. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence answered issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit directing the defendants to restore Y, Y1 panta bode portion and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from obstructing the flow of water in any manner from Y, Y1 panta bode to the plaint schedule land i.e., P1 and P2 plots. 9) Against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 22.04.2020, the defendants preferred AS No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Repalle. The Appellate Court after considering the submissions advanced by both sides and perusing material available on record formulated the points for consideration which reads as follows: i. Whether the plaintiffs in OS 249/2014 of the trial court is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the Y Y1 pantabode portion in the suit Y Y1 Y2 panta bode within stipulated time by the court and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from obstructing the flow of water in any manner through Y Y1 Y2 panta bode to the plaint schedule lands that is P1 P2 plots as shown in the plaint? ii. Whether trial court committed any error in decreeing the said suit and whether the said decree and judgment requires any interference of this appellate court in such finding? iii. To what relief? 10) After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and considering the rival contentions, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the decree and judgment of the learned trial Court. 6 11) Learned counsel for the appellants / defendants sought to impress upon the court that the Courts below went wrong in appreciating the case of the defendants in the correct perspective and the decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs / respondents as confirmed by the Appellate Court, are liable before set aside. 12) The learned counsel submits that the matter deserves admission, more particularly for adjudicating the substantial questions of law, which reads as follows: 1. The respondents / respondent / plaintiffs has to file suit for grant of declaratory relief of existing right to draw the water through Panta bode marked as Y, Y1, Y2. 2. The executants of Ex.A2 have no right to draw the water from the Panta Bode as such right was not established by the link document. 3. The easementary right of drawing water from Y, Y1, Y2 Panta Bode shall not be extended to the Item 1 of the plaint schedule as it was not belongs to Vicharapu Lakshmi Devamma. 4. The trial court and First appellate court did not appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence on the sound guidelines of principles of law. 13) Considered the submissions made and gone through the order of the learned trial Court as also the Appellate Court. 14) At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that except Sl.No.1 of the substantial questions of law, which in fact is not properly formulated, the other points sought to be projected as questions of law are broadly based on factual aspects and as such no questions of law are involved. Be that as it may, the Sl.No.1 is reframed in the following manner: 7 “Whether the suit for mandatory injunction and the consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs without seeking grant of declaratory relief of existing right to draw the water through panta bode marked as Y, Y1 and Y2 is maintainable?” 15) Before answering the same, it may be appropriate to deal with point Nos.2 to 4 and the findings of the Court below, though no substantial question of law is involved. As noted earlier, to prove their case the plaintiffs examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exs.A1 to A4, whereas no documents were marked on behalf of the appellants / defendants. It is the specific case of the respondents / plaintiffs that there is panta bode on the southern side of D Plot wet land of defendant No.1 and Item No.2 of the suit schedule property and the same is shown as Y, Y1 and Y2 in the plaint plan and that except the said panta bode there is no other way to draw the water to their land for cultivation. In Ex.A1 there are clear recitals with regard to existence of panta bode. Though the defendants/appellants denied the existence of the same in the written statement, Defendant No.1 who was examined as DW1 in his cross- examination categorically admitted that there is a panta bode. Further in the affidavit filed in the caveat petition (Ex.A5) he clearly stated that there is a panta bode and the schedule mentioned in the caveat petition contained details of the boundaries which include panta bode on the south and west sides of the land in D No.353/1. The learned trial court after considering the said aspects as also Exs.C1 to C3 had recorded a categorical finding about the existence of panta bode, which aspect was referred to in Exs.A1 and A2 i.e., Original Registered Will dated 21.09.1975 and the Registered Sale Deed 8 dated 19.05.1995. The learned Appellate Court while appreciating the evidence, recorded its findings at Para 26 of the judgment in A.S.No.4 of 2021 in the following terms: “26. Defendants did not file any material documents to prove their case and that Ac.-58 cents is in single plot and panta bode does not exists in Y Y1 land but the 1st defendant admitted that panta bode is in existence as per Ex.A5. Defendants came to the court with unclean hands. Trial court has rightly concluded and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to restore the Y Y1 panta bode portion in the suit Y Y1 Y2 panta bode within 3 months from the date of the judgment and this court would not interfere in the judgment and decree of the trial court. Decisions filed by the counsel for the appellants reported in 2022(1) ALT 107 (AP) 813 between K. Ramulu Panasaladibba v K. Apparao Panasaladibba and others; 2018 (2) ALT 316 High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh between Lingala Potha Raju (died) per LRs and others v Chagantipati Annapurnamma and others; 2024 (4) ALT 118 (AP) High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati between T. Mahalakshmi Ammal and another v Krishna Venkateswari and others does not support the case of the appellants / defendants since the facts of the aforesaid decisions and the present case are quite different. Thus, from the foregoing discussion this court is of the opinion that this appeal is liable to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in OS 249/2014 dated 22.04.2020 as there is no ground to interfere with impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the point is answered.” 16) Coming to the substantial question of law reframed by this Court, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs, there is an existing panta bode and water is being drawn from it for the purpose of cultivation of the lands. The recitals in the Ex.A1 and A2 and the admission on the part of the DW1 about the existence of the panta bode supports the case of the plaintiffs and in fact it is 9 not the case of the plaintiffs that they have exclusive right over the said panta bode. In such situation the relief of mandatory injunction as sought for, more particularly in the light of the documentary evidence supporting the case of the plaintiffs is tenable and no declaratory relief need be sought for. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants / defendants. 17) For the aforegoing reasons, this Court see no question of law, much less, substantial question of law and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 18) Consequently, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date20.06.2025. Ssv 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL NO: 362 OF 2025 Date:20.06.2025 ssv