THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.912 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The deceased-1st respondent filed O.S.No.53 of 1998 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, against the appellant, for the relief of declaration, to the effect that the area covered by the wall, marked as ‘A to H’, in the plaint plan, was owned by him, and for the relief of perpetual injunction. The manner, in which the 1st respondent acquired the property, was described. The appellant pleaded that the suit schedule property is a ‘Panchayat Rastha’, and not the exclusive property of the 1st respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit, on an earlier occasion. In A.S.No.88 of 1992, filed by the appellant herein, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded. On such remand, additional issues were framed, and the suit was decreed, once again, on 26.11.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.2 of 1999 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Badvel. The appeal was dismissed, on 10.09.2004. Hence, this Second Appeal. Heard Smt.N.Shobha, learned counsel for the appellant. The suit was filed, initially, in the year 1981, in the Court of District Munsif, Proddatur. Subsequently, it was transferred to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, and re-numbered, twice. The specific case of the 1st respondent was that the suit schedule property, along with the appurtenant land and building; were acquired by his ancestors, from one Mr.Vadlapudi China Subbaiah, way back on 19.10.1936, under Ex.A.5. The appellant, on the other hand, pleaded that it was being used as a ‘Rastha’ and he pleaded the relevant facts, leading to the purchase of the appurtenant land by his ancestors. The trial Court framed issues and additional issues, touching on different aspects. On behalf of the 1st respondent, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.16 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.26 were filed. A Commissioner was appointed and his report and plan were taken on record, as Exs.C.1 and C.2. Initially, the suit was decreed, and thereafter, it was remanded. After remand also, the suit was decreed, and the appeal, filed against it, was dismissed. One important aspect, that arises for consideration, is that the 1st respondent prayed for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, and the appellant has not pleaded any rival title to the suit schedule property. On the other hand, he alleged that he has a right to use it, as a passage. For this purpose, either he ought to have filed a separate suit, or counter-claim, for declaration, that he has right to use the property, as lane. He did neither. Once the trial Court found that the respondents have title over the suit schedule property, the relief of declaration was to follow. Hardly any controversy exists, as to the possession of the property. The reason is that, it is only a wall, and it was not even pleaded by the appellant, that he constructed it. Therefore, injunction was also a matter of course. This Court does not find any substantial question of law, in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:06.10.2009 GJ