PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. SARALA, D/O.KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 1385 of 1996 of the Ist Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam is aggrieved by the decree declaring the right of the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs for access to item No. 4 as an easement of necessity and the grant of mandatory injunction confirmed by the Vth Additional District court, Ernakulam in A.S. No.294 of 2003.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, they got item No.2 by way of kudikidappu and obtained purchase certificate in the year, 1972. It is their case that item Nos. 1 to 4 originally belonged to a common owner and that they were using item No.4, pathway from item No.2 for access to Kachappilly road on the western side and for such access, they have no other way. The appellants and the respondents 3 to 8 caused obstruction to the user of the pathway and hence the suit.

(3.) THE trial court found that item No.4 is the only means of access to the respondents 1 and 2 and since there was severance of tenements between item Nos. 1 to 3, the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to get a decree for declaration and mandatory injunction since the respondents 1 and 2 have no other means of access to item No.2. The mandatory injunction directed the appellants and other defendants to open up a way along item No.4 at a width of 3 feet. That judgment and decree were confirmed by the first appellate court in A.S. No.294 of 2003.