SUSHA Vs. PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGAL heirs of the plaintiff in O.S.No.356/2003 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Palakkad are the appellants. Defendant is the respondent. Plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction contending that the eastern boundary of plaint A schedule property is plaint B schedule way and respondent has no exclusive right over the said way and he is having only a right to use the way. Plaintiff constructed a gate on the south eastern boundary of plaint A schedule property and has been using the said gate to enter into plaint B schedule way. Respondent constructed a structure immediately to the east of the said gate to cause obstruction to the right of way and he has no right to do so and therefore, a mandatory injunction is to be granted to remove that structure and and also a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from causing any obstruction to the use of plaint B schedule way.

(2.) RESPONDENT contended that plaintiff has no right of way through plaint B schedule property and the southern boundary of plaint A schedule property is a Panchayat Road and as he has no right, plaintiff is not entitled to the decree, sought for.

(3.) ARGUMENT of the learned counsel is that Exhibit A2, the title deed of the respondent, establishes that respondent has no absolute right over plaint B schedule way and he has only a right to use the way. Exhibit A1, the title deed of the plaintiff, establishes that the eastern boundary is a way and in such circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to use plaint B schedule way and respondent, who has only a fractional right to use that way, has no right to cause obstruction to the way available to the plaintiff and therefore, first appellate court was not justified in reversing the findings of the trial court. Learned counsel argued that the fact that plaintiff has right of way to the western road does not mean that he has no right to use the eastern way and in any case, respondent, who is only having a right to use that way, has no right to cause any obstruction to that way and therefore, the decree of the trial court is to be restored.