VARKEY OUSEPH Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case concerns the use of a pathway shown as item No.2 to the plaint. Item No.1 belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained item No.1 as per Ext.A1 partition deed. According to the plaintiff, plaint item No.2 pathway starts from the eastern panchayath road and passes through the property of the defendants and it reaches the property of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, that is the only means of access to his property and that has been used for more than three decades. The suit was laid when there was an attempt from the side of the defendant to tamper with the way.

(2.) THE defendants resisted the suit. In fact, the only contention that was seriously made was regarding the width of the pathway. The existence of the pathway as such was not disputed. According to the defendants, the pathway had only a width of 3 feet and not 10 feet as alleged by the plaintiff.

(3.) ON the basis of the above pleadings, issues were raised and the parties went to trial. The evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants examined DW1. Exts.C1 to C2(a) are the commission reports and plans.