THAYYIL KANISSANTE VALAPPIL SARASWATHI Vs. BHARATHA TEXTILES CANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 294/87 in the court of Munsiff, Kannur impugns the validity of the Appellate order dated 5/11/1990 in A.S. No. 27/89 made by the I Addl. Sub Judge, Thalassery by which he reversed the decree for mandatory injunction made by the trial court and remanded the case for trial of the issue whether the respondent holds an irrevocable license under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition appear in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 below : The appellant and the respondent are in this judgment referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant respectively.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 294/87 in the court of the Munsiff, Kannur. She claimed a decree for a mandatory injunction that the defendant-respondent herein, shall remove the shed used as pump house and the water pipes connecting the well to the defendant's factory. The plaintiff based her title on the assignment dated 1-6-1986 made by Devaki, Nalini, Prasanna and Ashokan who were the admitted owners of the land. There is a well in the land purchased by the plaintiff. The defendant runs a handloom factory in the name of Bharat Textiles. The plaintiffs predecessors-in-title permitted the defendant to take water from the well. The defendant constructed a shed (pump house) and also fixed water pipe lines from the well to the factory. According to the plaintiff the defendant executed this work without the consent or sanction of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title. It is this shed and the pipe line that the plaintiff wants to be removed from her property.

(3.) An English translation of the written statement is filed by counsel for the defendant. Its correctness is not disputed by the plaintiff's counsel. The substance of the written statement relevant to this case is this :