SARGIS Vs. P K SIVADASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (Sargis) in Ex. F.A. 2 of 2006 is the plaintiff/decree holder in the suit O.S. No. 212 of 1992 on the file of the Addl. Sub Court, North Paravur. THE decree holder challenges the order dated 23-12-2005 passed by the Court below partly upholding I.A. 1154 of 2001 which was a claim petition filed by the first respondent (P.K.Sivadasan) . As per the impugned order the Court below allowed delivery of the decree-schedule property through its western boundary wall but disallowed delivery through the eastern boundary wall and the alleged pathway claimed through the eastern boundary property belonging to the claim petitioner (P.K.Sivadasan). THE decree holder challenges the latter part of the aforesaid order . THE appellant in Ex. F.A. 3 of 2006 is P.K.Sivadasan referred to above and he challenges that part of the aforesaid order which has partly disallowed his claim by directing delivery through the western boundary wall of the decree schedule property.

(2.) WE heard Advocate Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the decree holder and Advocate Sri. Abraham George Jacob appearing for P.K.Sivadasan, the first respondent in Ex. F.A. 2 of 2006 and Advocate Sri. V.Rajendran, Perumbavoor , the learned counsel appearing for P.K.Sivadasan, the appellant in Ex. F.A. 3 of 2006.

(3.) EVEN assuming that the above question regarding the right of way survives for consideration notwithstanding the fact that the decree schedule property has been delivered over to the decree holder on 1-2-2006, we are afraid that the decree holder has miserably failed to prove the right of way set up by him.