THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1140 of 2009 ORDER: The appellants purchased plot Nos.5,7 and 8 to 11 of lay out in survey No.36/3/A of Akkayyapalli Village. Later on, the village became part of the municipal corporation of Kadapa. The two sets of plots are divided by a lane. The petitioner enclosed all the plots including the passage in between them with a compound wall. The respondents herein proposed to demolish it. According to them, the passage is a public road connecting the localities, such as Sastry nagar and Tilak nagar to the national highway. Therefore, the appellants filed O.S.No.1140 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for the relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents in respect of the plaint schedule site shown as ‘ABCD’ representing the lane. The respondents filed written statement denying the allegation of the appellants. According to them, the suit schedule property is a public road vested in the concerned local authority and that the appellants do not have any right over it. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 16.03.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S.No.36 of 2007 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 01.09.2009. Hence, this second appeal. Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the very purpose of purchasing the contiguous plots of both the sides of land was to enjoy the entire property exclusively and that there was no basis for the respondents in interfering with the same. He contends that the lane in question was purely private for the exclusive benefit of the owners of plots 5,7 and 8 to 11 on either side and that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not appreciate the matter from the correct perspective. Though the notice was served upon the respondents, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The suit filed by the appellants was the one for injunction simplicitor. The trial Court framed only two issues for its consideration viz., 1. whether the plaintiff occupied the Road portion and constructed compound wall? 2. whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction? On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. Out of them, Exs. A.1 to A.5 are the sale deeds and Ex.A.6 is the lay out. Exs.A.7 and A.8 are the notices got issued on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, D.W.1 was examined and an attested copy of the municipal surveyor report was filed as Ex.B.1. The appellants do not claim that they have purchased the suit schedule property. Undisputedly, it is a lane on either side of which the plots purchased by the appellants are situated. Whenever a lay tot is sanctioned by the local authority, the roads shown in the lay out become public property and the erstwhile owner of the land or the subsequent purchasers of the plots cannot claim exclusive rights over the lane. The Courts below have analysed the matter meticulously. It was found that the aggregate of the extent purchased by the appellants is A.0.42 cents, whereas the land enclosed by them with compound wall is Ac.0.47½ cents. The difference of the area is the one shown in the suit schedule. Had the appellants got the suit schedule passage as an exclusively concomitant of their plots, things would have been different. In case, the passage was exclusive for them, necessary recital was expected to be there in the sale deed. A perusal of the sale deeds and in particular, Ex.A.4 discloses that the suit schedule property was shown as “public road”. Therefore, the question of the appellants claiming exclusive rights over the suit schedule property and to claim injunction against the respondents does not arise. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is however directed that the respondents shall be entitled to demolish only that portion of the compound wall constructed by the appellants, which prevented the passage through the suit schedule property and they shall not touch the compound wall that encloses the plots purchased by the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 02.03.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1140 of 2009 Date: 02.03.2010 JSU