KURIAKOSE ABRAHAM Vs. CHACKO KURIEN, AGRICULTURIST AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S.No.410/2000 before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom are the appellants. The parties and facts are referred to as they are available before the trial court.

(2.) The plaintiffs claimed that plaint item No.1 belonged to the 1st plaintiff and plaint item No.2 belonged jointly to plaintiffs 2 and 3. They alleged that plaint item No.3 forms part of plaint item Nos.1 and 2 and it lies in between the two properties. According to the plaintiffs, they left space between the properties so as to rear pigs. The defendants had instituted O.S.No.143/1988 claiming right of easement to use plaint item No.3 as a pathway. That suit was dismissed. The dismissal was confirmed in appeal and the second appeal. But while disposing of the second appeal, this Court had made certain observations regarding item No.4 in that suit. The title with reference to item No.4 in that suit which is item No.3 in the present suit was left open. So also any other right which the plaintiffs in that suit who are defendants in the present suit may agitate other than the right of easement. Since the right of the plaintiffs with regard to item No.3 is being disputed, it becomes necessary to lay the suit.

(3.) Defendants resisted the suit. They pointed out that item No.3 is a thondu lying in the north south direction connecting the southern panchayat road and the plaint schedule item No.4 property. The claim of the plaintiffs that item No.3 in the present suit is a portion of plaint item Nos.1 and 2 is not correct. The only means of access for the defendants to the property is the thondu which is item No.3 in the plaint. It is also contended that the two kayyalas being outside the strip of land shown as item No.3 would clearly indicate that item No.3 did not form part of item Nos.1 and 2. They reiterated the claim of right of way through item No.3. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.