MATHAI MATHEW Vs. MATHAI VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P8, order passed by the learned Munsiff, Ettumanoor on Ext.P7, application on I.A No. 1328 of 2012 in O.S. No.65 of 2008 is under challenge in this original petition.

(2.) THE respondent sued the petitioners for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespassing into the suit property or committing waste therein. The petitioners filed written statement and raised a counter claim claiming right over a pathway allegedly in existence through the suit property, based on easement by prescription. That pathway is described as the counter claim C schedule property having width of 3 feet and length of 200 meters.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the first petitioner and the respondent acquired the respective items belonging to them as per partition deed No.1621 of 2011. It is also contended that the service of a Surveyor is required to identify and locate the counter claim C schedule way. The learned counsel submits that in Ext.P6, judgment, it is observed that it is open to the petitioners to apply for a survey commission to obtain a revised report.