VARGHESE Vs. JOSE MATHEW @ ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question arises for consideration in this appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.

(2.) The facts fall within a narrow compass. The plaint item No. 1 property belongs to the plaintiff and plaint item No. 2 is a pathway. Plaint item Nos. 3 and 4 belong to the defendants. As per the allegations in the plaint, pathway scheduled as item No. 2 starts from Ramapuram-Manathoor road and runs in between plaint item Nos. 3 and 4 and finally it reaches the property of the plaintiff. It is claimed that that is the only means of access to the property of the plaintiff and he has been enjoying the pathway for more than 20 years. The details of the pathway could be discernible from the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff claimed right of easement over the pathway and also sought for a decree directing the respondents-defendants to remove the obstructions caused to the pathway.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit. It is contended that the plaintiff is having no property described as item No. 1 in his possession. It is also contended that the description of plaint item No. 2 was not correct and there is no pathway as claimed by the plaintiff. It is further pointed out that the plaintiff has other means of access to his property. Further contention was that there is an edavazhy starting from Ramapuram-Manathoor road and that is being used by the plaintiff.