RUGMINI Vs. KUTTAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S.No.1655 of 1988 of the court of Prl. Munsiff, Irinjalakuda, who suffered decrees at the hands of both the courts below are the appellants.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property forms part of the properties obtained by the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff as per sale deed No.944/1119. Along the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property, a private pathway belonging to the defendants runs and that pathway ends in the property belonging to them. There exists a boundary separating the plaint schedule property from the way and the property belonging to the defendants and the said boundary was maintained by fixing hedge stakes and putting up fence from ancient times by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not able to put up fence on the southern boundary due to the obstruction of the defendants. On the allegation that the defendants are causing obstruction from putting up a fence on the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property and attempting to trespass into the suit property, the suit was laid.

(3.) BEFORE this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that on the southern and eastern sides of the plaint schedule property there is a private pathway of width 12 links belonging to the defendants. The defendants are claiming a falling of width of 16 links and that shows the apprehension of the plaintiffs is true.