K J CHACKO Vs. JOSEPH DEVASSIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants Nos. 1 and 4 are the appellants in this action. THE plaintiff filed the suit for injunction-mandatory and prohibitory and for damages. THE plaint reveals the following facts.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is the owner of 7 acres 10 cents in r. S. No. 85/1c/4/6. Two items of properties are scheduled in the plaint. These two items of properties are parts of the 7 acres 10cents described earlier. In between plaint items 1 and 2 there is a road with an average width of 3 metres. This road connects a place by name Thannikuzi with Manimala-Ranni Road .

(3.) THE contentions raised by the defendants are almost identical. According to the defendants, the road mentioned in the plaint was a road vested with the Manimala Panchayat. THE area used as the road as well as the plaint schedule properties belonged to one Konnika Mannil Francis Joseph, who had leasehold interest in the property. THE said Francis surrendered the land required for widening the road and that included the plaint schedule properties. Since the Panchayat had no funds the public by contributing their labour ({iazmw) attempted to widen the road. When the road was widened, some rubber trees, according to the defendants, 7 rubber trees were cut and removed. THE defendants contended that the plaintiff has not sustained any damage. It was emphasised that the widening of the road was done by the public only on the land duly surrendered by the owner and it cannot be regarded as an encroachment of the civil rights of the plaintiff. THE defendants submitted that no ground exists for granting a decree of injunction either prohibitory or mandatory. THEy also contended that the damages claimed are excessive and that the suit is not maintainable.