HANEEFA Vs. KUNHIMUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.75 of 2023 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Perinthalmanna, and the respondent is the plaintiff therein. The suit was filed for a mandatory injunction to restore the 3 ft way through plaint B schedule property and for restraining the defendants from obstructing the usage of the pathway by the defendants or their men. Along with the suit, I.A. No.2 of 2023 was filed for a temporary mandatory injunction for demolishing the compound wall.

(2.) Plaint A schedule property originally belonged to the plaintiff's grandfather Moideenkutty, and after his death, the entire properties were partitioned among the plaintiff's father, defendants' father, namely Komu and their sisters Kadiyumma and Pathumma. All the properties were part of a single holding. The respondent's father was allotted the property on the northern side of the plaintiff's father's property. A 3 ft wide pathway existed from the beaten track on the eastern side of the properties allotted to Kadiyumma and Pathumma to the plaintiff's father's property and the respondent's father's property. The plaintiff's father assigned plaint A schedule item No.1 to the plaintiff as per document No.1856/1991 of SRO, Makkaraparamba and has constructed a house and has been living there for the last 13 years.

(3.) Plaint A schedule item No.2 was assigned in favour of his sister Ayisha, by document No.1855/1991 of the same SRO. The sister assigned the property, obtained by her, to the plaintiff by document No.246/1994. Thus, plaint item Nos.1 and 2 are lying as a single plot in favour of the plaintiff. The pathway leading to the defendant's father's property was developed into a pathway of 10 feet, and the said way passed through the defendant's property, having a width of 3 ft., and ended in the plaint A schedule property. The said way is described as plaint B schedule.