JOY Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who was concurrently non-suited by the courts below is the appellant.

(2.) THE suit was one for prohibitory injunction. According to the plaintiff, he obtained plaint A schedule property by virtue of Ext.A1 partition deed dated 7.4.1997. THEre is a way shown as item No.2 in the schedule, which has been provided for the use of the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 4 in Ext.A1 partition deed and that way has been in use by its executants. Complaining that the defendants are trying to obstruct the use of the way by the plaintiff, the suit was laid.

(3.) BASED on the above pleadings, necessary issues were raised by the court below. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exts.A1 and A2 marked from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants examined D.Ws. 1 and 2. Exts.C1 to C4 are the commission reports and plans. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the way now shown in the plaint is not the way made mention of in Ext.A1 partition suit and therefore non-suited the plaintiff. An appeal filed by the plaintiff met the same fate.