P K SUTHAN Vs. N THANKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff approached the trial court for a declaration of easement of way and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the use of the said pathway by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he is in possession and enjoyment of plaint item No.1 where he is residing with his family. Plaint items 2 and 3 belong to defendants 1 and 2. The property of the first defendant lies on the western side of the Punnamada road. A pathway starts from its south-eastern side towards west and it proceeds along the eastern side of the property of the second defendant and reaches plaint item No.1. The plaintiff alleges that the pathway is having a width of 5.5 ft. The same has been used by himself and the predecessor in interest. He alleges that he acquired easement of right by way of prescription and also easement of right by way of necessity. He further alleges that the first defendant attempted to obstruct the said pathway and reduced its width. Thus, he approached the court below with the suit.

(3.) The respondents, who are the defendants, admitted the existence of the pathway and the user of the same by the plaintiff. However, they contended that the width of the pathway is only 3 ft. They preferred a counter claim for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from causing any obstruction against putting up a fence or compound wall on the southern side of the first defendant's property leaving 3 ft. width of the pathway.