(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.973/2006 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram who was successful in the trial court but was non suited by the lower appellate court is the appellant.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the plaintiff owns plaint schedule property by virtue of Ext.A1 document dated 19.05.1997. The defendants, a couple, reside on the western side of the property owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The northern half of that property is owned by the 2nd defendant and the southern half by the 1st defendant. In fact, these properties were initially owned by one David Kurian who owned a larger extent of property. In order to have access to the public road on the southern side, David Kurian by virtue of Ext.B3 dated 24.05.1964 purchased three cents of property. The property owned and possessed by David Kurian was subsequently the subject matter of settlement between the three brothers who divided the properties into three portions. The eastern portion was taken by David Kurian, the middle portion by John Kurian and the western portion by Issac Kurian. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff is the successor in interest of John Kurian and the defendants are the successor in interest of Issac Kurian.
(3.) IN the plaint, it is specifically stated that the 1st defendant is entitled to use 15 links pathway running on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property which was given by way of grant and which was accepted by the plaintiff. The allegation was that except for a mere user of that way, the defendants had no manner of right over that way. In order to protect her property, the plaintiff wanted to put up a gate on the south eastern portion of her property assuring that she would cause no hindrance to the right of way enjoyed by the 1st defendant. On these premises, suit was laid.