THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL Nos.114 & 166 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two second appeals are similar in nature. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. The appellants herein filed suits, being O.S.Nos.274 and 771 of 1986 in the Court of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District against the respondents herein, who are common defendants in the two suits, for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain them from using the vacant site on the northern side of the respective houses of the appellants as passage. The uniform case of the appellants is that the area was owned by the Gram Panchayat and that in turn, has given pattas to the respective appellants for construction of houses and accordingly, houses were constructed long back. It is stated that the appellants have constructed compound walls on all the sides, but when they were making efforts to construct compound wall on the northern side of the houses, the respondents obstructed. According to them, the respondents have no right or entitlement to obstruct the construction of compound wall or to use the plaint site as passage. The respondents filed identical written statements in all the suits. They pleaded that the land in question is owned by the Railways and it was being used as passage by many persons in the locality to have access to their respective houses. They contended that the appellants do not have any vested rights over the property. The trial Court decreed the suits through separate, but similar judgments, dated 22.08.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed individual appeals in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Through judgments, dated 21.09.1998, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeals. Hence, these two second appeals. Smt.Anjanadevi, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the trial Court took into account, the oral and documentary evidence and recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the appellants are having exclusive rights over the sites in question and that the respondents do not have any right of way across the same. She contends that some of the defendants have instituted proceedings earlier to the suits and there, the passage was not at all indicated. She submits that the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgments rendered by the trial Court without any factual or legal basis. Sri M.V.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the suits filed by the appellants were not at all maintainable, inasmuch as they sought for injunction vis-à-vis a property, which is not owned by them nor even the relief of declaration was sought. He contends that the appellants having pleaded that they are assigned the land by the Gram Panchayat, they did not place an iota of evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court framed the following issues in the suits, which are almost similar: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for: (2) To what relief? The nature of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties is also similar. The suits were filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. Though it is not necessary for a plaintiff in a suit of that nature to establish title, he can claim the relief of injunction, if only he claims exclusive rights vis-à-vis the property. It is only then that he can prevent others from using the property. Conversely, if the plaintiff does not have exclusive right over the property, he cannot prevent others from using it. In case the rights of the plaintiff are already established or evidenced through recognized sources of law, he does not have to seek any relief of declaration. On the other hand, if no such foundation for his rights exists, it becomes necessary to seek the relief of declaration as a condition precedent for claiming the relief of injunction. In the instant case, the suit schedule property did not devolve to the appellants by way of succession nor did they get it by way of transfer. The uniform plea is that all of them have been assigned plots by the Gram Panchayat over the Gram Kantam land. If that were to be so, they ought to have filed the copies of assignment. No such effort was made. In a given case, they could have even prayed for the relief of declaration of title on the strength of prolonged adverse possession. Even that was not done. In the absence of asserted rights vis-à-vis the suit schedule property, the appellants herein cannot stand on a higher footing than the respondents. It is not as if the respondents are trying to claim the property in the exclusive possession. They pleaded that they were having access to their houses through the passage, which is shown in the suit schedule. When the entire land occupied by the appellants and the respondents was owned by the Government and they have constructed houses even without permission, one of them cannot prevent the other from having access to his house. At any rate, that relief could have been claimed only by way of seeking declaration. The lower appellate Court has taken correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in these second appeals. Hence, the second appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.07.2010 kdl