PAPPACHAN Vs. ALEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed O.S.No.261 of 1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor seeking a decree of declaration and injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. Their claim was that they prescribed right of way along plaint C schedule pathway. The respondents, part of whose property is plaintiff C schedule, opposed that claim by contending that such a pathway never existed and the same was the ridge of their paddy field. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit as per the judgment dtd. 11/6/2007. In the appeal preferred by the appellants under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned Additional District judge, North Paravur confirmed the said judgment and decree. Aggrieved by the same, this Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code is preferred.

(2.) The substantial questions of law formulated for consideration are,-

(3.) The 1st appellant is the owner and in possession of plaint A schedule property. The 2nd appellant is the owner and in possession of plaint B schedule property. The property of the respondents abuts the public road at its northern side. The appellants claim that they have been using for the last more than 35 years a five feet wide area on the northern and western sides of the respondents' property, which starts from the public road on the northern side. The said pathway, which the appellants described in plaint C schedule, is stated to branch; one towards south and other towards west. The branch towards south reaches plaint A schedule property and the other proceeds towards the west to reach plaint B schedule property.