VALSAMMA ALEX Vs. K M LILLIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal arises from the judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Thiruvalla in O.S. No.288 of 1994, confirmed by the learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla in A.S. No.42 of 1998.

(2.) FIRST respondent-plaintiff, it is not very much in dispute is the owner in possession of plaint schedule item No.1. She claimed a right of way through plaint schedule item No.2 described as way having width of 5= feet, originating from the Municipal road on the north, proceeding towards south through the property of appellant and reaching item No.1. In paragraph 4 of the plaint first respondent claimed that Item No.2 is in existence for more than 50 years and is being enjoyed by the first respondent and her predecessor-in-interest, openly, as of right and without obstruction. Alleging that appellant and the second respondent, her husband are attempting to obstruct user of item No.2, first respondent filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction.

(3.) THE following substantial question of law is framed for a decision: