SUNIL SAJEEV Vs. KUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADDITIONAL 6th defendant in O.S. No. 158 of 1994 of the court of learned Munsiff, Muvattupuzha is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha in A.S. No. 78 of 2008 and has preferred this Second Appeal urging the substantial questions of law raised in the memorandum of appeal. Parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as in the trial court for convenience.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, plaint A and B schedules belong to him and his mother as per Ext.A1, assignment deed No. 1306 of 1960 while plaint C schedule belongs to the plaintiff as per document No. 202 of 1973 (Ext.A2). Plaintiff is residing in plaint A schedule property on the north of plaint A schedule property belonging to defendants 1 to 4. There is a road starting from the Municipal road leading to the eastern side. Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 478 of 1985 against the 1st defendant and others when user of the road was obstructed and that suit was decreed. In continuation of the way referred in O.S. No. 478 of 1985 there is a thondu leading to the suit property. Defendants obstructed the user of plaint B schedule and hence the suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property and mandatory injunction as regards the obstruction caused in plaint B schedule.

(3.) TRIAL court was not inclined to accept the case of plaintiff regarding plaint B schedule and while refusing to grant relief to the plaintiff regarding B schedule, granted relief as regards plaint A and C schedules. Plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 78 of 2008. The first appellate court found in favour of the right claimed by the plaintiff over plaint B schedule also and accordingly granted relief with respect to plaint B schedule as well. Challenge in this appeal is to that part of the decree of the first appellate court.