K.Seetharami Reddy vs K.V.Jagadeshwaran
2021 Latest Caselaw 3919 AP

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANNA

                  SECOND APPEAL Nos. 374 & 375 of 2000


COMMON JUDGMENT:


        The plaintiff in O.S.No.9 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the

learned Subordinate Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Srikalahasti is the

appellant in S.A.No.374 of 2000. He was the defendant in O.S.No.2 of

1990 on the file of the same Court and he preferred S.A.No.375 of 2000.


       2. O.S.No.9 of 1990 was filed by the appellant to declare his 1/8th

share in the suit well as well as the suit site, for removal of different

structures over the suit site by means of mandatory injunction and for

permanent injunction restraining the respondent from closing the suit well

and the suit site interfering with his 1/8th share therein by making

constructions or alterations including storing fertilisers or pesticides etc.

3. The respondent sought permanent injunction in O.S.No.2 of

1990 restraining the appellant from interfering in any manner with the

constructions being made by him over the plaint schedule site therein.

4. The parties as arrayed in S.A.No.374 of 2000 shall be referred to

hereinafter for convenience.

5. The property concerned to both the suits is one and the same,

located in Kothapet area, Srikalahasti town, Chittoor District that included

a well and a site measuring east-west - 20 feet, and North-South - 10

feet. The structures raised on this site are also part of the plaint schedule

in O.S.No.2 of 1990.

6. By common judgment in both the suits dated 28.11.1996,

O.S.No.9 of 1990 was decreed as prayed and O.S.No.2 of 1990 was

dismissed. A.S.No.137 of 1996 and A.S.No.135 of 1996 were preferred by MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

the respondent on the file of the Court of the learned V Additional District

Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, where by the decrees and common judgment

dated 17.01.2000, that part of the decree granting mandatory injunction

in O.S.No.9 of 1990 was set aside, while confirming the permanent

injunction granted therein. The decree and judgment in O.S.No.2 of 1990

were reversed granting permanent injunction as requested in favour of

the respondent and against the appellant.

7. The appellant preferred both these second appeals in these

circumstances.

8. The respondent did not prefer cross-appeal or cross objections in

respect of the relief maintained by the appellate Court in favour of the

appellant relating to grant of permanent injunction. The relief granted by

the appellate Court as per the decree in appeal did not in any manner

interfere with the declaration granted by the trial Court in favour of the

appellant nor any second appeal is preferred there against by the

respondent herein.

9. Both these second appeals are heard together and therefore they

are being disposed of by this common judgment.

10. The appellant and respondent are neighbours. Both of them are

traders in fertilisers at Srikalahasti. The premises of the appellant is to the

south of the disputed site claimed by the respondent. The disputed well is

located in that disputed site. This well is a draw well and was serving as a

source of drinking water not only to the parties to these appeals including

their predecessors-in-title but also to the entire locality.

MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

11. The case of the appellant is that he had purchased the premises

in his occupation under a registered sale deed dated 21.09.1976 from the

erstwhile owner Smt. Koneti Meeramma @ Gandla Meenamma for valid

consideration including 1/8th share in the disputed well. He further stated

that he has been enjoying water from this well using an electric motor.

While admitting that the respondent has remaining share in the disputed

well and the site, he further stated that with an intention to occupy the

disputed site, since it is located adjoining the main road as well as the suit

well, the respondent closed it to which he alleged that the respondent did

not have right. He further stated that the respondent had put up a

sunshade measuring east-west-20 feet and north-south-3 feet on the

southern side of the suit well and the suit site highhandedly and he had

also constructed RCC slab raising pillars covering this entire site. The

appellant further contended that taking advantage of an ex parte

injunction in O.S.No.2 of 1990, he also raised another RCC slab covering

the first floor, affecting his right to deepen the suit well as well to remove

silt therefrom. Referring to location of pipes laid by him for drawal of the

water from this well, the appellant further stated that on account of this

RCC slab in the ground floor, it would be difficult for him to remove the

pipes in case of necessity and would also affect free flow of air and light.

12. The appellant further stated that the respondent filed

O.S.No.113 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District

Munsif, Srikalahasti and under the guise of an ex parte injunction therein,

he had also put up a rolling shutter at the entrance of the disputed site

closing the same illegally. On account of putting up of this rolling shutter

at the entrance of this site, according to the appellant, the respondent has MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

converted this site into a shop room carrying on business in chemical

fertilisers and that he is intending to start business in pesticides, in which

event, the water in the well would get polluted. The appellant further

stated that the respondent also raised level of the flooring at this site by

2 feet covering the pipelines laid by him, affecting his rights.

13. In the above circumstances, in view of his right in the well as

well as the site in dispute, he requested the reliefs.

14. The case of the respondent while admitting 1/8th share in the

suit Well of the appellant, which he has been in possession and enjoyment

by drawing water using an electric motor, he denied other allegations set

out against him. He further stated that on account of closure of well, he

would be put to much hardship than the appellant, since he has been

using the water from this well for drinking and domestic purpose by

installing an electric motor. The respondent further contended that this

litigation has been commenced on account of business rivalry. He further

contended that the well in dispute was originally covered with granite

stone slab to half of its circumference over which there was flooring

serving as passage to his house from the main street on the west. He also

stated that there was a wall, in the middle of the well over this granite

slab, of 3 feet height, as a protection preventing from falling into the well

by users. He further stated that when he was effecting alterations and

additions to his house and constructing a room infront of it for locating

fertilisers shop, the appellant requested him to sell a portion of this house

adjoining on the north to enable him to expand his house, to which he did

not agree.

MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

15.The respondent further contended that the appellant

highhandedly demolished the granite stone slab on 29.12.1989 mid night

and also the wall thereon threatening his watchman and thereupon, the

appellant got constructed a wall around the well of 3 feet height, affecting

right of passage to the respondent and his family members.

16. The respondent further contended that the entire site in dispute,

where well is located, absolutely belonged to him and that he has every

right to make constructions thereon. Referring to construction of ground

floor and the first floor in this site, he denied the difficulties expressed by

the appellant in use of the well for deepening or for desilting. He further

contended that the well is serving five (05) families altogether in the

complex raised by him and that there is also alternative facility of

municipal water to serve all of them. He further contended that RCC slab

put up by him is not causing any obstruction to flow of air and light and

asserted that he had put up rolling shutters at the entrance of the house

to avoid strangers and stray animals, entering into his premises.

17. Stating that putting up this rolling shutters would not cause any

inconvenience to the appellant, which he did to safeguard his property,

the respondent denied that his business in fertilisers would lead to

polluting the water in the well in question. Referring to pipelines laid by

the appellant from the suit well, he claimed that they are intact and they

are not affected on account of the cement flooring laid by him.

18. On the pleadings in both the suits, the trial Court settled the

following issues for trial:

MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

O.S.No.9 of 1990

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his 1/8th share in the suit well?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of mandatory injunction as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction as prayed for?

4. To what relief?"

Additional issues settled on 08.06.1994

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to 1/8th share in the suit site around the suit well?

2. To what relief?"

O.S.No.2 of 1990

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?"

19. Common evidence was let-in in O.S.No.9 of 1990 treating it as

the lead suit for both the suits. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1

and two more witnesses to support his claim, while relying on Ex.A1 to

Ex.A21. The respondent examined himself as D.W.1, his predecessor-in-

title as D.W.2 and one of the neighbours as D.W.3 while relying on Ex.B1

to Ex.B15 in support of his contention.

20. In these second appeals the substantial question of law at the

time of admission is as follows:

"Whether the appellate Court is justified and legally acted in reversing the finding of the trial Court without taking into consideration the admission of D.Ws.1 to 3 and also construing Exs.A1 and A2?"

21. The claim of the appellant is based on purchase of the property

under original of Ex.A2 sale deed dated 21.09.1976. Smt. Gandla MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

Meenamma, Wife of Sri Venkata Ramayya Chetty sold this property to the

appellant. She inturn had purchased the property under the original of

Ex.A1 dated 11.01.1938 from her husband. The property so purchased by

her from her husband included share in the draw well with brick structure.

Location of this well is specifically stated in this sale deed dated

11.01.1938, with civil road on the east, open site of Sri Murahari Singh on

the south, as well as front yard on the west and open lane of Sri Murahari

Singh on the north. She conveyed the same rights to the property under

the sale deed dated 21.09.1976 covered by Ex.A2 to the appellant. The

description of this well is given in this registered sale deed within the

following boundaries:

East : Road from Poothalapattu to Naidupet South: Portion of the house of Sivaranibayamma West : Front yard of Sivaranibayamma, and North: Lane belonging to Sivaranibayamma.

1/8th share in this well is thus conferred by the vendor of the appellant to

him, under this sale deed.

22. The respondent is not disputing right of the appellant to use

water in the well in dispute. The location of this well is not in dispute. It is

in the open site, which is to the west of the property of the respondent.

Commissioners were appointed in the suits, where they filed reports along

with sketches after due inspection in the presence of learned counsel for

the parties. These reports gave the description of the location of this well.

23. The respondent has purchased the property claimed by him

under Ex.B1 sale deed dated 04.02.1980 (Ex.A4 is its registration extract).

There is a reference to the well in dispute in this sale deed as a brick

structure and draw well. However, reference is made in this sale deed of MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

the right of the appellant to draw water alone from the well in question.

The vendor of the respondent under this sale deed is Smt.

G.Sivaranibayamma, who is referred to in the sale deed dated 21.09.1976

covered by Ex.A2. Ex.A5 is the registration extract of another sale deed

dated 30.10.1980 under which the respondent had purchased the

property from Sri Subrahmanyam Chetty and his sons, where there is also

a specific reference that the appellant has only a right to draw water from

the well in question. Nonetheless, seven (07) shares out of eight (08) in

this well in favour of the respondent is not disputed by the appellant. His

contention is that not only he has such share in the well but also a share

in the site surrounding this well, which has been conferred to him by

virtue of his title deed covered by Ex.A2 and which hitherto his

predecessor-in-title were enjoying by virtue of the sale in her favour

covered by Ex.A1. The contention of the appellant further is that reference

to his right to draw water from the well in dispute in the sale deeds

referred to above in favour of the respondent was purposely done and

that such recitals are not binding on him which were brought out to

prevent him from making any claim to the site surrounding this well.

24. The vendor of the respondent under the original of Ex.A4-Smt.

Sivaranibayamma had purchased the property on 21.08.1958 under the

original of Ex.A3 from Smt. Raajanbayamma, wife of Sri Gulabi Murahari

Singh. The sale covered by Ex.A3 is not disputed.

25. This sale deed (Ex.A3) has significant effect importantly from the

context of the case of the appellant to the disputed site as well as the

well. The recitals in this sale deed are referring to the draw well in

question and that the vendor thereunder had half share therein. There is MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

also reference to the open site infront of the above well. This open site is

described as a joint site ('POTHALA JAAGA' in Telugu). This sale deed

further mentioned a joint pathway on the north leading to this well. Thus,

reference to the open site at this joint well as a joint property in this sale

deed and also right of passage to reach this well on the north, are

supporting the stand of the appellant. Therefore, what was conveyed to

the vendor of the respondent under the sale deed dated 04.02.1980

(Ex.B1) was the right so acquired by her from her predecessor, namely

Smt. Raajanbayamma under original of Ex.A3 sale deed. Apparently, as

contended by the appellant, the respondent did not choose to have this

well as well as the site infront of it, as joint property. Similarly, significant

reference to the share of the appellant in the well to draw water alone in

the sale deed dated 30.10.1980 covered by Ex.A5 as contended for the

appellant, is an attempt on the part of the respondent as if to confine the

claim of the appellant only to that extent.

26. These sale transactions did indicate that the entire properties

claimed by the appellant as well as the respondent were part of joint

property of Sri Venkata Ramaiah Chetty and Sri Murahari Singh, who had

half share each in the suit well as well as the suit site. This admitted

situation is well described in para-31 of the judgment of the trial Court.

Apart from these sale transactions, in respect of the suit well and its

topographical features further reference is made in the same paragraph

31, of the judgment of the trial Court. It is desirable to extract the same

hereunder:

"31....... It is also admitted fact that originally a portion of the suit well was closed with a granite stone and the parapet wall was constructed in the shape of half moon in order to prevent stray cattle and men from falling into the said well. It is also admitted fact that the disputed site is east-west MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

20 feet and north-south 10 feet, that within the said site, there is round suit well, which is in between the house of the D.W.1 defendant and the main road leading to poothalapattu village. It is also admitted fact that the suit well is adjoining the wall of the D.W.1 defendant's house on the southern side and there is no space between the well and the said house. It is also admitted fact that adjoining the suit well, originally there was a room on its southern side, that the said room was demolished by the D.W.1/defendant after his purchase and converted into staircase leading to upstairs."

27. A lot of litigation ensued in between these parties in relation to

this property. The respondent filed O.S.No.113 of 1990 for bare injunction

on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District Munsif, Srikalahasti

as well as O.S.No.18 of 1991 on the file of the Court of then Subordinate

Judge, Srikalahasti for similar relief of permanent injunction against the

appellant. It is undisputed that the respondent laid RCC slab over the

disputed site covering the suit well and also constructed first floor

thereon. Taking advantage of the ex parte injunction granted in these

suits, it is the contention of the appellant that these structures were put

up by the respondent. Both the suits were got dismissed by the

respondent as not pressed. (Paras 33 and 34 of the judgment of the trial

Court referred to these facts.)

28. The learned appellate Judge, upon considering the material held

that what was conveyed by Smt. Meeramma in favour of the appellant

was only a share in the well without specifying any right in the site around

the well. While referring to the contents of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, the learned

appellate Judge observed that the land on the north of the well is

belonging to Sri Murahari Singh and that access to the well to take water

alone was provided.

29. The learned appellate Judge further observed that right to draw

water from the well situated in another property is an easementary right MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

and the sharers having this right to draw water from the well need not be

the owners of the land. This finding of the learned appellate Judge is

without any basis. It is nobody's case that the appellant is enjoying an

easementary right nor case of the parties is based on dominant or

servient tenements. The learned appellate Judge also observed that the

oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and D.W.1 to D.W.4 cannot have any

importance in view of the recitals in Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.

30. In the process of appreciation of evidence, the learned trial

Judge also took into consideration the oral evidence let-in by the parties.

The appellant as P.W.1 deposed as to nature of this well as a draw well. A

pulley was put up for drawal of water at this well and D.W.2-the

predecessor-in-title of the respondent stated that she got put up this

pulley. It is not disputed by the parties of location of a platform around

this Well.

31. The appellant got installed a motor to draw water in the year

1981 which is also admitted by the respondent as D.W.1 at the trial. To

facilitate drawal of water undisputedly pipelines were got laid by the

appellant. Similarly, the respondent got laid pipelines and installed a

motor to meet his purpose. It appears the respondent constructed a

building which has been let out to tenants and this well is one of the

sources of water for all the inmates of these houses.

32. The appellant also deposed that the respondent had raised the

level of the flooring around the well by about 2 ½ feet and as a result, the

pipelines laid by him for drawal of water remained under this platform.

Thus, he expressed his difficulty in case of need to repair the motor or

these pipelines on account of the structures so laid by the respondent.

MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

Though the appellant deposed that the respondent had closed the well by

placing two slabs, which are crescent shaped, the report of the

commissioner, upon his visit on 13.01.1990, is that the suit well is not

closed by any construction. Similarly, the learned Commissioner also

observed that there is no separate sunshade as claimed by the appellant,

put up by the respondent, except RCC slab over this property. These

facts are not disputed and apparently these observations of the learned

commissioner were not questioned at the trial by the appellant. The

respondent as D.W.1 stated that there is an open space in front of the

building belonging to him. He further stated that to the north of this well,

there is 2 ½ feet wide space, which he was using to reach his house on

the north. According to him, they were also using stone slab placed on the

well to reach their house finding the above lane being narrow. This lane

obviously is referable to the lane described as Sri Murahari Singh in Ex.A1

and also referred as the lane being used by the predecessor-in-title of the

respondent.

33. There are certain statements elicited in cross-examination on

behalf of the appellant from the respondent. While referring to purchase

of the property under Ex.B1, he stated that it covered the entire suit

property along with some other properties. He also stated referring to

shares in this well purchased by him that all the sharers who have got

right in the well have also share in the site, as seen from the sale deed

executed by his vendors in his favour. He further stated in cross-

examination that the disputed site relates to the well.

34. When these statements are considered, as rightly contended for

the appellant by Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel, it leaves no manner MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

of doubt that what was conveyed to the respondent was only a joint right

in the well as well as the site surrounding it. It stands in consonance with

the recitals in the sale deed covered by Ex.A3 dated 21.08.1958. He also

admitted of laying a roof covering this entire site and the well and raising

level of the floor by 2 ½ feet around the well making the pipelines laid by

the appellant, coming under it. He further stated in cross-examination that

he constructed a shop room over the well and the site under the

assumption that he is the owner of the site around the well.

35. D.W.2-the predecessor of the respondent referring to location of

this well and the property around it, stated that there is a site around this

well confirming such fact.

36. The learned trial Judge considered these statements of the

witnesses. Having regard to the topographical features and the structures

at the suit site as well as the suit well, in para-39 of the judgment learned

trial judge rejected the contention on behalf of the respondent that what

was conveyed under the original of Ex.A2 to the appellant was only 1/8th

share in the well and which did not cover the site in question, recording

the following finding:

"39...... Admittedly, there is Hamsapadhi or platform around the suit well and the suit site is around the said platform. As rightly contended by the plaintiff's counsel, the site around the well is kept open for ingress and egress from the well and thus the open site is annexed to the suit well. If the suit site is bifurcated from the suit well, the plaintiff cannot reach the suit well. The suit site is meant for enjoyment of the well and without the suit site one cannot go to the suit well. If it is the intention of the plaintiff's vendor to sell only water right in the suit well, she would have stated as in Ex.A-2 in clear words."

37. The learned trial Judge further observed that the admissions of

the respondent as D.W.1 clearly show that the suit site, which is around

the suit well is annexed to it and that it cannot be separated from the MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

well. The learned trial Judge also observed that the right to take water

from the joint well cannot be dissociated with the site around it and that

every owner has a right in every inch of joint property while other co-

owner cannot make any construction thereon to the detriment of other

co-owners.

38. These observations of the learned trial Judge are correct and

they stand in consonance with the ground situation as is explicit from the

material on record.

39. The material on record makes out that the appellant has right to

use the water from the suit well whatever the extent of his share therein.

It is a draw well to which later on arrangements were made by the parties

to pump out by means of electric motor for their convenience.

Nonetheless, the character of the well remained as such. In order to reach

this well, necessarily the appellant should have access. As already stated,

the predecessors of the appellant as well as the respondent had provided

for it particularly towards north by means of a passage, which was being

used by Sri Murahari Singh and later by his successors-in-interest.

40. Therefore, the right so conferred, included access to this well.

To have this access, there should be a right to use the site around this

well. These rights cannot be considered in isolation and they are all

necessary for beneficial enjoyment of this well by all the joint sharers.

When this well is a common and joint property among different sharers,

who were predecessors to the parties to these appeals and later for them,

the site around this well cannot be appropriated by the respondent as his

own property. The recitals in the sale deeds in his favour covered by

Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, thus should be seen as a mischievous attempt by him to MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

get at such right for the first time, which obviously his predecessors never

had thought to confine and limit.

41. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in this

context are very apt than what has been stated by the learned appellate

Judge. The learned appellate judge did not take into consideration the

statements elicited from the respondent as D.W.1 in this context nor

considered the recitals in Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 in proper perspective. In fact, it

is misreading of the evidence on record and improper appreciation of

evidence. Thus, the learned appellate judge did not consider these

aspects in right perspective and is not right in interfering with the

conclusions and inferences drawn by the learned trial judge.

42. A co-sharer, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge,

cannot have on his own, the entire property for his own purpose in

exclusion of other joint sharers. It is the precise situation found in this

case. The respondent could not have raised structures upon this site

around the well as well as the well, which are meant for common as well

as beneficial enjoyment of all the sharers. Raising slabs over this well and

putting up either commercial space or residential space over this site

which admittedly was done by the respondent is nothing but a

highhanded act demonstrative of his intentions, to usurp this common

property to the detriment of the rights of the appellant.

43. The respondent cannot contend that the appellant had slept

over for quite a long time in allowing him to raise such structures. The

situation in this case did not depict such scenario. It was the respondent

who had gone for raising these structures to his detriment and peril, even

though he was fully aware that he did not have such right to do so MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

particularly in the context of the claim set up by the appellant against him

in respect of the suit well as well as the site in question.

44. Therefore, the learned trial Judge is right in declaring such joint

1/8th share in the suit well as well as the site surrounding it. As a

consequence, in view of such structures raised without any manner of

right by the respondent and illegally, they require to be removed as was

rightly ordered by the learned trial Judge. Injunctive relief was rightly

confirmed by both the Courts below in the circumstances against the

respondent, requested by the appellant.

45. At the same time, in the back drop of these circumstances, the

learned appellate judge could not have granted relief of permanent

injunction against the appellant of the nature in O.S.No.2 of 1990 by the

decree and judgment in A.S.No.135 of 1996. An injunctive relief could not

have been granted against the co-owner at the instance of another co-

owner, which is the situation found in this case.

46. Therefore, in the light of the material and evidence on record,

the common judgment of the appellate Court to the extent of setting

aside the decrees and common judgment of the trial Court in granting

mandatory injunction and in reversing the decree and judgment in

O.S.No.2 of 1990 in favour of the respondent should be interfered with. It

appears, by oversight, the learned appellate Judge did not specifically

mention in the operative portion of the judgment in respect of right, title

and interest claimed by the appellant against the respondent relating to

the suit site and the suit well wherefor the declaratory relief granted by

the learned trial Judge. However, the judgment of the appellate Court MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

reflected discussion thereon, the findings on which are now required to be

interfered with.

47. Therefore, interference with the decrees and common judgment

of the appellate Court is required to the extent stated above and restoring

the decree and judgment of the trial Court in both the suits.

48. In the result, both the second appeals are allowed setting aside

that part of the common judgment and decrees in A.S.No.137 of 1996 and

A.S.No.135 of 1996 dated 17.01.2000 of the Court of the learned

V Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati in setting aside mandatory

injunction granted by the trial Court and dismissal of O.S.No.2 of 1990.

Consequently, the decrees and common judgment of the trial Court in

O.S.No.9 of 1990 and O.S.No.2 of 1990 dated 28.11.1996 stand restored.

However, mandatory injunction directing removal of sunshade put up over

and above the plaint schedule property as prayed in para-10 of the plaint

in O.S.No.9 of 1990 is not granted and rest of the directions relating to

mandatory injunction granted by the decree in O.S.No.9 of 1990 and

common judgment of the trial Court shall stand restored. The respondent

is directed to remove the structures within four (04) months from now. In

default, the appellant shall be at liberty to take recourse to process of law

moving the trial Court by execution proceedings for this purpose. In the

circumstances, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs in

these second appeals.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated.

_________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANNA Dt: 05.10.2021 RR MVRJ, S.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2000

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANNA

SECOND APPEAL NOS. 374 & 375 of 2000

Dt: 05.10.2021

RR