THARAYIL THITHIKUTTY UMMA Vs. MAIMOONA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of easement of right of way and for prohibitory injunction against obstruction of the way, are the appellants. The suit was concurrently dismissed by the Courts.

(2.) Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the wife and husband respectively. The plaint 'A' schedule property belongs to the first plaintiff-wife as per document No.2157/1974. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has produced a rough sketch showing the lie of the properties. For the sake of convenience the properties are referred to as marked in the sketch. In the said sketch, the plaint 'A' schedule is marked as plot 'A'. On the immediate northern side of the plaint 'A' schedule property (Plot-A), is the plaint 'B' schedule property belonging to the second plaintiff-husband (Plot-B). It was purchased by the second plaintiff as C. R. per Ext.A1 sale deed of the year 1989. To its immediate north is the property of defendants 1 and 2 which is shown as 'D' plot in the rough sketch. On its eastern side, lies plot number 'E' and to its east is plot 'F' which belong to defendants 3 and 4 respectively. On the eastern side of plot 'F' is a public road which lies in north-south direction. From the said public road towards plot-D and along the northern side of plots 'E' and 'F' is a way marked as plot 'C'. According to the plaintiffs, for their access to the eastern public road they have access to the plot 'C' way through the property of defendants 1 and 2 through the way marked in the rough sketch in dotted lines as 'W'. The plaintiffs claim easement right over the way portion marked as 'W' and injunction is sought regarding the same.

(3.) The defendants denied the existence of the way (plot W) as claimed by the plaintiffs and also the right of way. It was further contended that the plaintiffs have other access to their properties.