RAVIKUMAR Vs. NARAYANIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in the courts below is the appellant. Suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff has a right of easement by necessity and prescription over plaint B schedule property, belonging to the defendant, for access to plaint A schedule property, that the defendant and her men be restrained from obstructing plaint B schedule pathway or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff's right to use that way, that the defendant be restrained from trespassing into plaint A schedule property or interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property and for such other reliefs. The trial court examined three witnesses on the side of the plaintiff and three on the side of the defendants. Exts.A1 to A7 are the documents marked by the plaintiff and Exts.B1 to B8 are the defendant's documents. Exts.C1 to C3 are the Commissioner's plans and reports.

(2.) On the basis of the evidence adduced, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his right to get a declaration and injunction. Hence the suit was dismissed.

(3.) Aggrieved by the finding, the plaintiff approached the lower appellate court (Court of Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam) with A.S.No.6 of 2013. The lower appellate court elaborately considered the facts and agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff had not established his right to get the reliefs prayed for.