PRADEEPAN Vs. BINUKUTTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O .S.No.32/2011 was laid by the plaintiff complaining of alleged trespass into plaint schedule property for the construction of a new pathway by the defendant. The plaintiff laid the suit on the strength of Ext.A1 settlement deed No.4476/1997. According to him, when the defendant tried to put up a gate opening into his property, he apprehended that the defendant may be intending to create a new pathway for access to his property. Pointing out that neither the defendant nor the public have any manner of right over the plaint schedule property, suit for injunction was laid.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit. The defendant claimed prescriptive right of easement along with other persons of the locality. It is pointed out that the allegation of attempt to put up a gate is with the intention of cutting open a new pathway is false since there is already an existing pathway. It is specifically pointed out that the plaintiff has no authority or right to restrain the defendant or others from using the pathway. On the basis of these allegations, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) ON the basis of the above pleadings, issues were raised and the parties went to trial. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A4 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendant had DWs 1 and 2 examined. Exts.C1 to C2(a) are the commission reports and sketch.