CYRIAC MATHEW Vs. CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S. No.78 of 2011 of the First Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam are aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. Nos.518 and 3398 of 2011 confirmed by the Second Additional District Court, Ernakulam in C.M.A. No.22 of 2012. Exhibit P6, common order and Ext.P7, judgment are thus under challenge.

(2.) petitioners sued respondents 1 and 2 originally, for a decree for prohibitory and mandatory injunction. According to the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 formed a new road along the eastern side of the plaint A and B schedules belonging to the petitioners. Petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest were enjoying water frontage on the east of the plaint A and B schedules. While so, respondents 1 and 2 undertook to open a new road for the public and started digging soil for construction of the basement. Grievance of the petitioners is that on construction of the road on the eastern side of the plaint A and B schedules, respondents 1 and 2 are attempting to construct a compound wall separating the plaint A and B schedules from the said road, thereby blocking access to the plaint A and B schedules from the said road. According to the petitioners, the said road (plaint C schedule) is the only access to the plaint A and B schedules. Hence the prayer for prohibitory and mandatory injunction.

(3.) The 3rd respondent got itself impleaded as additional 3rd defendant in the suit. The respondents contended that the 3rd respondent executed a Memorandum of Understanding and lease agreement with respondents 1 and 2 (Ext.P1) and based on that, has reclaimed 5000 sq.metres of land comprised in Sy.No.2578/4 and 8000 sq.metres comprised in Sy.No.34/4 and 304. The said area was handed over to the 3rd respondent for construction of the Terminal. That is for operation and maintenance of the Ro- Ro/Lo-Lo of the Terminal. They also contended that there was no water frontage for the plaint A and B schedules and that on the east of the plaint A and B schedules, it is puramboke land. The river comes on the further east of the puramboke land. The further contention raised is that the petitioners have access towards west from the plaint A and B schedules at a width of one metre.