K.K.ANANDAVALLY Vs. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs came up with this appeal against the decree and judgment of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

(2.) The suit is one for claiming prescriptive right of easement over B schedule property. According to the plaintiff, B schedule property is the only way available to their property. It is belonged to the Municipality. In the month of December 1999, the Municipality constructed an obstructing wall. As such, the suit was filed on 20/11/2000 claiming prescriptive right of easement over the property. The suit was dismissed by both the courts below, on the reason that the B schedule description is incomplete not as mandated under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC. Going by B schedule description, it is clear that nothing mentioned with respect to the place wherein the way commences or its alignment. The ending point of the way is not specified. It is also not specified whether the said way would lead to any public way or any other way available. B schedule description is totally incomplete. As such, no declaration can be granted based on incomplete description.

(3.) Incidentally yet another question also came up for consideration as the plaintiffs claim title over A schedule property based on Ext.A2 purchase certificate. Admittedly this property is belonged to a perpectual minor. It is exempted from the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act. As such, the purchase certificate issued would be a nullity in the eye of law. But the said question need not be considered in this appeal. Since the B schedule description itself is wrong and incomplete, no decree can be granted.