E NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. M ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.142 of 1994 of the Sub Court, Hosdurg is aggrieved by the decree passed in that case as confirmed by the District Court, Kasaragod in A.S.No.139 of 1998.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondent/plaintiff, the plaint A and B schedules originally belonged to the appellant (being part of 30 cents covered by Ext.B1). Appellant gifted the plaint A and B schedules to his Uncle, Krishnan Nair as per gift deed dated 25.07.1987. It is the further case of the respondents that the gift was accepted by the donee who got possession of the plaint A and B schedules. The donee constructed a house in the said property. The appellant cancelled the gift as per document No.237 of 1992 . Later, he sold the said property to the said Krishnan Nair as per Ext.A2, assignment deed dated 17.08.1992. At that time the appellant executed Ext.A3, registered agreement dated 04.03.1993 in favour of Krishnan Nair granting him right of access through the western boundary of the 20 cents belonging to the appellant. The respondent further alleged that the plaint B schedule, pathway joined the public way on the northern side of property of the appellant. It has a width of four links and length of 130 links. The respondent claims that he purchased the property from Krishnan Nair as per Ext.A4 and by virtue of Ext.A3, registered agreement he has acquired a right to use the plaint B schedule pathway for access to the public road on the northern side. Alleging obstruction on the part of the appellant, respondent laid the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction.

(3.) THE learned counsel contends that there is dispute regarding the identification of the plaint B schedule and rest of the property belonging to the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the properties belonging to other persons are shown to be belonging to the appellant. The learned counsel also contended that the respondent has no right of access to plaint A schedule through the plaint B schedule.