PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. RANJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd defendant in O.S.No.125 of 2010 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode-I is aggrieved by the decree for prohibitory injunction granted by the III Additional District Court, Kozhikode in A.S.No.34 of 2012. The parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as in the trial court.

(2.) THE plaintiffs prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction against the defendants causing obstruction to their user of plaint B schedule, described as a common way having width of four feet and provided along the western boundary of the entire property as per Ext.A1, partition deed. The trial court dismissed the suit for the reason that the plaint A schedule items claimed by the plaintiffs are not properly identified. In appeal, the first appellate court took the view that notwithstanding that there is no proper identification of the exact extent belonging to the plaintiffs and referred to in item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint A schedule, evidence revealed that plaintiffs have retained with them portion of the property and hence they have a right of access through the plaint B schedule. Accordingly a decree was granted in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. That judgment and decree are under challenge.

(3.) THE defendants contended that the plaint A and B schedules are not identifiable and that claim of title and possession made by the plaintiffs over the plaint A schedule is to be proved by them. They also claimed that the claim being made by the plaintiffs is over a way leading to the shop rooms belonging to the defendants. A further contention the defendants raised is that the plaintiffs have no property near the shop rooms of the defendants.