SANTHAKUMARI Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S.No.221 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff, Ottapalam are aggrieved by the reversal of judgment and decree in that case by the learned Sub Judge, Ottapalam in A.S.No.68 of 2007.

(2.) RESPONDENT/plaintiff sued the appellants for a decree for prohibitory and mandatory injunction. He claimed that plaint A schedule belonged to him as per Ext.A1, assignment deed of the year, 1984 executed by one Ponnambal and later, respondent purchased the jenm right from the landlord as per proceeding No.84 of 2001. Plaint B schedule is a way described as having width of 12 feet, starting from the north-eastern portion of plaint A schedule and reaching the Panchayat road on the further east. According to the respondent, the way was granted by Balaguptan, predecessor-in-interest of appellants about 30-35 years back. Respondent filed O.S.No.140 of 2004 against the 1st appellant for injunction against trespassing into his property and enraged at that, appellants (allegedly) blocked plaint B schedule way by constructing a barbed wire fence thereby reducing the width of the way. Hence the suit.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Advocate for appellants contends that existence of the way is not proved. At any rate, to sustain a plea of easement by way of grant there should have been a formed way which is absent in this case. It is also contended that finding of the first appellate court regarding width of the way is not correct and even the report of the Advocate Commissioner would only show width at the entry point as three feet as against two metres now fixed by the learned Sub Judge.