MARY EMMANNUEL Vs. MERCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit for prohibitory injunction against obstructing the user of plaint 'C' schedule pathway, though decreed by the trial court, was dismissed in appeal. Aggrieved, the plaintiff is in second appeal.

(2.) An extent of 10 cents of property originally belonged to one Papu. Out of the 10 cents, the south-western 3 cents was gifted by him in favour of his daughter Mercy who is the defendant in the suit as per Ext.A7 (same as Ext.B3) of the year 1988. The said three cents is the plaint 'B' schedule. An extent of 3 cents towards its north was gifted by Papu to his another daughter viz. Rosily. An extent of 3.5 cents on the eastern portion of the 10 cents was gifted by Papu to his another daughter Alphonsa under Ext.A5 gift deed. Under Ext.A4 Alphonsa conveyed the property in favour of one Johnson who in turn conveyed it to the plaintiff. The said 3.5 cents is the plaint 'A' schedule. Plaint 'C' schedule is a pathway claimed by the plaintiff, having a width of 10 links starting from the western public road and leading to the plaint 'A' schedule through the north side of plaint 'B' schedule. According to the plaintiff, she has a right to use the plaint 'C' schedule, as obtained under her document of title.

(3.) The derivation of title is not disputed by the defendant. According to her, under Ext.A7 she obtained title over the plaint 'B' schedule 3 cents as also over 5 links wide way which is described in the plaint 'C' schedule, exclusively; the plaintiff does not have any right over the way.