The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent No'1 & 3 :NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No'2 :SRl R'CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No. 204 of2023 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated I I . I 1.2022, passed by the principal District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy, in A.S.No.30 of20lg, rvhereunder and whereby appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated, 24.01.2O18, passed by the Senior Civit Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in O.S.No.38 of 2010. 2' The appellant herein is ptaintiff and the respondents herein are defendants, before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The brief facts of the case, which ted ro filing of the present Second Appeal, are that plaintiff filed the suit for declararion of right of easement of water and mandatory injunction and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants lrom interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintilf over the suit [and. lt is averred that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor o| the land in Sy.No.l/A, Admeasuring Ac.0_36 gts in pocharam Village, 2 LNA, J SA.No 204 of2023 patancheru Mandal and the said tand is being cuttivated through a MotaBavisituatedinGramaKantaonabuttingSy.No.lwhichis patta land of the family of the plaintiff and they have been enjoying the water of the said well since time immemorial' It is further averred that well is a source of water for the plaintiff and also land holders of Sy.No.2,3,4 and 5 and the same was being used for more than 100 years. Plairtifls father took electricity connection to the suit well in 1983, which has been forcibly ctosed by the Sarpanch during the year 2004 with an intention to make construction' without giving any opportunity to the famity of the ptaintiff' Thereafter' the plaintiffcame to know that the Panchayat Extension Officer' Patancheru directed the Sarpanch/defendant to take possession of the said place by an order dated 17 .03.2010, but possession has not been taken- The plaintiff has got right to seek the relief ol perpetuat injunction against the defendants. Hence, filed O.S' No'38 ol20l0'

4.AWriftenStatementwasfiledbythedelendantNo.lderrying tlre averments of the suit and averted that suit well was already dried up and the same was posing danger to the children and other residents of the village. ln the year 2002, Gram panchayath passed a resoluti'on to take over the site of the open well which was filled-up under the I ! I I I I i I 3 LNA, J SA.No.204 of2023 food for work scheme. The well is about 1000 sq.yds and id adjacent to the Patancheru Town and in view of the increasing land value the plaintiff filed the suit without any right. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the pa(ies, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- I .Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he has acquired absolute right of easement of taking water front the suit well? 2. Llthether the plaintilf is entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land including changing the nature of the land as prayedfor?

3.\|'hether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatoty injutctiott directing the defendants to reopen the suit well or allow, the plaintffi to reopen the same for rightful enjoyment of the suit well as prayed for?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.l to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.Al to A4 and on behalf of the delendants, DW. I was examined and got marked as Exs.B I to 84 on thelr behalf. 4 LNA' J SA No.204 oJ2023

1. After full-fledged trial and upon considering' the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties' the trial Court dismissed the suit, vrZe judgment and decree dated 24'01'2018 widr the following observations: '75. Howeuer, it is alreadg held that as on dote of iiling of this stit itself tlere woLs no u-tell in existence on th'e ground and uhen there is no utell as it being the Gramakantam land the plaintiJf cannot be in the possession or restrain the autlnities from using it for public purpose' Adding b thot as on this date the relief sought bg the plaintiff itself hlcLs become infructous a-s he is tat anltiuating the land anA more in the surueg No' 7 asthesameulasconuertedintoplotsandadmittedlg Manjeera Hpeline haue been laid by the gouernment'

16. Vieuting from ong angle' the plointiff is not entitled for ang of the retiefs ctoimed by htm but stitl the defendants to s?Lottt tlat the plaintiff Lwd entered into tlw deuelopment agreement ond aLso obtained the lag out had got marked Exs'B'1 to B'4 i e' Ex'4 1- CC of fuuelopment agreement document No' 3231/ 2O16 dt' 17.2.16, Ex'B'2- Supplementary ogreement document No. 15457/ 16 dt' 1 1'7' 16' Ex B'3- CC of gift settlenlent ded docum.ent No' 22235/ 17 dt' 7'10'17' Dx'B'4- APProued logout Pbn bg HMDA LP 1Vo' 12/ ORR/JC/ plg/ HMDA/ 20 16 dt 2o'O5'2o 16' tttrough DW.l but as the ptaintiff had' failed to establish tlnt he 5 LNA, J SA No.204 of 2023 is entitled for ang of the retiefs ctaimed by him therefore tlrc rebuttal of the euidence by the d.efendd_nts d.oes not anse. Ac@rdingly first, second and third. issues are ansuered."

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.01.201g, plaintiff preferred A.S.No.30 of 20lg on the file of the principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

9. On an appeal, the first Appellate Court, being the final fact_ finding court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgmenr dated

11.11.2022, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

10. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:- " I l. Then it has to seen whether the well is required as a source of irrigating the agrianltural lands of the plaintiff. The evidence on record clearly shows that the plainti/f has converted tlte land to non agricultural purpose ancl cctnverted into a residential lay out after obtaining pernission ft'om the HMDA. Once the use of land ha-s lteen converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purpos<: the nccessitlt of irrigating the land with the waterfront the nel! 6 LNA, J SA.No.204 o12023 ceases. Therefore the well is not required as source of irri gation for the Plainti/f' "

10.1. The first Appellate Court furtherobserved as hereunder:- " t 4. In these circumstances since the ruature of the Dominant Heritage that is the plaintiff's land has changed and since the purpose for which the easement is claimed hasceasedtoexistandsincethedefendantswereableto show that the servtent Heritage' that is the well' ceased to exist and became unfit for the purposes claimed to be required by the plaintiff for the beneficial use of the Dominant Herilage, the easement is extinguislrcd The easement is also extinguished by the acts of the plaiuiff in converting the dominant heritage into plots and also b1t his very act of closing lhe well' as admitted bv his owrt witnesses. In those circumstances the appellant/plaintff cannot claim any right or title or easenrcnl in the welL artd cannot seek any mandatory injunction to reopen the w'ell' Moreover, the wry frct that he suppressed tlrc cottversion of the land to non-agrkultural purpose shows that he had approached the court with unclean hands and he is ttol entitled to any equitable relief' " ll.HeardSriK.AnoopKumar,Ieamedcounselfortheappellant and Sri R. Chandrastrekar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire material available on record' I r LNA, J SA.No.204 of2023 bavi,,

12. Leamed counsel for the appellant contended. that.the trial Court as well as first appellate Court erred under law while dismissing the suit of the appellant without considering the fact that the ..Mota is an historical monument existing since centuries and is covered under the Heritage Act. Both courts have not considered the relief sought for by the appelrant to reopen the suit weil or allow the ptaintlff to draw water from the suit well by restoring the suit well. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment. l3' A perusal of the record would disclose that both the trial court as well as rhe first Appellate Court observed that appellant converted the land and suit well into plots and in view of the said act, appellant cannot claim any right and carmot seek any mandatory injunction to reopen the wer[. Therefore, the trial court as welr as the first Appellare Court has rightly dismissed the suit. 14. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no grour-rd or reason warranting interference with the said findings, under Scction 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appe[lant are tactual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal. l t 1 To, 8 LNA, J SA.Na.204 of2023

15. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed' SD/-P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUW REGISTRAR IITRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER

1. The Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge' Sangareddy' 2.TheCourtoftheSeniorCivilJudge,MedakatSangareddy. 3. The Sarpanch, Grampanchayat' Pocharam Village' Patancheru Mandal' 4. Panchayat Secretary, Poctaram Village' Patancheru Mandal' 5. District Panchayat fficer,Medak at Sanga Reddy' 6. one CC to SRI K' ANOOP KUMAR Advocate IOPUCI 7. One CC to SRI R'CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY' Advocate {OPUCI 8. Two CD CoPies Pcsd/psl HIGH COURT ,DATED: 1 DtO3t2OZs l l rl t: t:.. .^ ii\ rl\ C) \\ 11 sEP 2ffi !.-', ". . r- r tt_9 * JUDGMENT SA.No.204 ot 2023 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION \