THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.412 of 2011 September 8, 2011 Between: Adabala Chitti Mahalakshmi, W/o.Venkateswara Rao And others ... Appellants And Jana Nagamallayya, S/o.Sankarayya And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.412 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This defendants’ second appeal is against concurring judgment in A.S.No.28 of 2001 dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole, East Godavari District. The first respondent (hereafter, the plaintiff) instituted the suit being O.S.No.90 of 1994 seeking mandatory injunction against nine defendants alleging that he has set up an oil mill in the property marked as ‘A’ in the plaint plan, that the portion marked as ‘XY’ is a road on the east since times immemorial and that the defendants raised thatched houses thereon ignoring the objection of the plaintiff. It was further alleged that 6th defendant was making attempts to raise pakka construction necessitating filing of the suit. The defendants opposed the suit. Their case was that they were residing in their houses for more than four decades, that plaint-A portion is wetland, which was converted into a mill, and there was enough space for free access to go to the mill. The contentious issues were tried and plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 to 4 besides marking Exs.A.1 to A6. D.Ws.1 to 8 deposed for defendants and Exs.B1 to B20 were marked. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that though the plaintiff as owner of the land abutting R&B road has right to access to his property, his allegation that the defendants blocked his access, was proved. The suit was accordingly decreed. Before the first appellate Court, defendants contended that they have been occupying the land and raised construction, obtained electrical connections and some of them converted into tiled houses. They denied the plaint allegation that access was blocked by the defendants. They also raised the plea of adverse possession. Considering the evidence on record, the appellate Court rejected the plea and came to the conclusion that the defendants are causing obstruction to the plaintiff to reach the road situated on the eastern side of the oil mill and, therefore, the mandatory injunction granted is sustainable. The Counsel for the appellants/defendants would contend that when the defendants having in occupation of the land for long period without there being any objection from the plaintiff, an inference has to be drawn against the plaintiff and it should be held that access is not denied to him. This Court is afraid the submission cannot be accepted. The plaintiff’s case that the defendants raised thatched houses shown as H1 to H7 in the plaint plan, remained proved. His evidence as P.W.1 was corroborated by P.Ws.2 to 4 and when there is obstruction, the question of acquiescence would not come in. Both the Courts have given cogent and convincing reasons in decreeing the suit. The second appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ September 8, 2011 (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS