THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4498 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.421 of 2010 in the Court of III Addi Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the petitioner for the relief of perp injunction in respect of a lane between two houses, bearing D.Nos. and 1/445. It is stated that the house bearing D.No.1/444 fell to his sha a family partition with his brother, by name Mallikarjuna Reddy, the ven the petitioner herein, and that his brother did not have any right vis-à-v lane. The petitioner, who is the purchaser of the house from its own claiming right of passage over it. The respondent filed I.A.No.475 of under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC. After hearing both sides, the trial passed an order, dated 12.07.2010, directing that status quo as on the of the order shall be maintained by both the parties. Aggrieved thereb petitioner filed C.M.A.No.11 of 2010 in the Court of IV Additional D Judge, Kadapa. The lower appellate Court dismissed the C.M.A. H this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a recital in Ex.B2, deed of partition executed in the year 1999 betwee respondent and his brother, Mallikarjuna Reddy, to the effect that the fo shall have a right of passage and thereby, the petitioner got a right to us passage along with the respondent. He contends that the trial Court as as the lower appellate Court has misread the evidence and have pa orders under revision. The passage was common between two houses that fell to the of the respective coparceners i.e., the respondent and his brother. petitioner purchased one house bearing D.No.1/445 from the brother respondent. It needs to be seen as to what right did said brother get partition that has taken place in the family. It has come on record that there are two partitions among the bro first in the year 1999 through Ex.B2 and second in the year 2001 th Ex.A1. It is no doubt true that in Ex.B2 there is a recital to the effect th respondent shall have a right to use the common passage. Had the state of affairs continued, things would have been different altoge Another partition took place among the brothers in the year 2001. In E that was executed in that context, it was clearly mentioned tha respondent shall have exclusive right over the passage. In other word vendor of the petitioner ceased to have any right over the passage, a things stand now. The question as to whether Ex.A1 was genuine and the purport thereof needs to be gone into at the time of hearing the suit. As the things stand now, the respondent has derived exclusive over the passage in question, through Ex.A1. Therefore, this Court inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the petitioner or her vendor had any pre-existing right vis-à-vis the pro to have ingress and egress, it shall be open to her to file an indepe application. As and when such application is filed, it shall be dealt w its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:19.10.2010 VGB