BATHAKKA KUNHIMARIYAM Vs. BATHAKKA SHAMEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A daughter and her mother taking up cudgels against their own progenitor led to the filing of the suit before the lower court. The grandmother was the plaintiff. The first defendant was the plaintiff's granddaughter and the second defendant, her daughter. The 3rd defendant was the husband of the first defendant. The plaintiff, residing in the ancestral house adjacent to the residential building constructed by her daughter and son-in-law; was prevented from using a motorable way to the ancestral house, by the granddaughter and her husband. The plaintiff's daughter too joined in the obstruction. The plaintiff claimed easement of prescription. The suit was decreed and the judgment was reversed in first appeal. The plaintiff/grandmother is in Second Appeal before this Court. The plaintiff having died, her son has been impleaded. The respondents are the defendants before the court below.

(2.) THE questions of law are re-framed as hereunder, with consent of the counsels :

(3.) THE trial court framed issues with respect to the prescriptive easement claimed on plaint B schedule, the obstruction said to have been caused in B schedule pathway, and as to whether the laterite stone steps in plaint B schedule was constructed after the institution of the suit. It is to be noticed that the plaint was initially filed claiming declaration as to the right of way through plaint B schedule lying in item No.6 of Ext.A1 and consequential injunction against the defendants from obstructing the use of plaint B schedule pathway. Subsequent to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint alleging construction of three rows of laterite steps in B schedule property, as noticed by the Commissioner and seeking a mandatory injunction for restoration of B schedule pathway.