HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL Nos.425 AND 860 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the Second Appeals arise out of O.S. No.284 of 2006 filed in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and mandatory injunction. It is stated that he purchased a plot of 6 ¼ cents in Tangutur village and Mandal in the year 1976 from one Pamidi Chenchu Obaiah and that the defendant purchased a plot of equal size on the northern side of his plot from one Sri K. Govindamma in the year 2004. His grievance was that the defendant occupied part of his plot in North West corner and constructed a compound wall. He filed the suit with a prayer to declare his title as regards the portion, said to have been encroached by the defendant, and for mandatory injunction for removal of the wall. 4. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the fact that herself and the plaintiff purchased equal extents of land in the locality from different owners. She, however, stated that she did not encroach into any part of the plot of the plaintiff. According to her, a small wall was constructed by her leaving South-West portion of her plot for the purpose of Vasthu and that she had independently purchased a strip of land, on the North East corner of her plot from a different person. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 20-12-2006. The defendant filed A.S.No.50 of 2007 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole. Through its judgment, dated 04-02-2011, the lower appellate Court modified the decree to the effect that the defendant shall remove the fencing or wall upto to the width of 2 feet on the North Eastern corner and make good of 113 sq.ft. While the defendant filed S.A. No.425 of 2011, the plaintiff filed S.A. No.860 of 2011 feeling aggrieved by the reduction of the area to be handed over by the defendant. 6. Heard Sri Goalla Seshadri, learned counsel for the defendant and Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff. 7. The plaintiff and the defendant are neighbours. It appears that the defendant purchased the plot much later, but she started construction earlier. The plaintiff complained that the defendant encroached into a part of his plot on the North Eastern corner and filed the suit. The trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration, viz., whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff deposed as PW-1 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.B-1 Sale Deed was filed. The report of the Commissioner, appointed by the Court, was filed as Ex.C-1. 8. The suit was decreed and in the appeal preferred by the defendant, the lower Court has discussed the matter with reference to the issue framed by the trial Court. 9. Normally, the compound wall will separate two adjacent plots. However, it is not uncommon that some place in between two plots is left, to ensure that the sizes are made regular or corrected to vaasthu. It is in this process that the dispute arose, in the instant case. 10. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant, who purchased a plot of equal size on the Northern side had encroached into his plot on the North Eastern corner. The version of the defendant, however, was that she left part of her plot in the South Western corner abutting the plot of the plaintiff for vaasthu purpose and almost an equal extent was purchased by her on the North Eastern corner. 11. The Commissioner, appointed by the Court, found that the separation of the plots of the plaintiff and the defendant is not through single wall. The controversy was as to whether the left over triangular portion is owned by the plaintiff or the defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for, whereas the lower appellate Court has modified the extent involved. 12. There is no dispute between the parties as regards title. It is the common case of both the parties that they purchased equal plots of equal size, viz., 6 ¼ cents each abutting each other. In such a case, there should not be any difficulty in demarcating boundary between the two plots. Once that is done, it would be clear as to whether the defendant has encroached into the plot of the plaintiff or not. In this process the strip of land that was purchased by the defendant on the North Eastern corner must be excluded. The measurement shall be with reference to Ex.A-1 sale deed, dated 09-07-1976, through which the plaintiff purchased his plot and Ex.B-1, dated 28-07-2004, the document under which the defendant purchased the plot. Both the parties have agreed for this course of action. 13. Hence, both the Second Appeals are allowed in part, directing that: (a) The plots of land purchased under Exs.A-1 and B-1 shall be measured and divided into equal parts in all dimensions. (b) The property purchased by the plaintiff on the North Eastern side shall be excluded from consideration. (c) In case, it emerges that the defendant has encroached into any part of the plot purchased under Ex.A-1, she shall be under obligation to vacate the same and remove structures, if any, thereon. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 12, 2011. KTL