ANIES Vs. RAPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINT 'a' schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Poulose. 'b' schedule property is a puramboke land on the western side of 'a' schedule property and on further west of 'b' schedule property is the national high way. The plaintiff and her predecessor-in-interest had access to the national high way only through plaint'b' schedule property. The plaintiff bad planted coconut saplings, plantains and other vegetables in 'b' schedule property as she was keeping this property in her possession. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that on 29-6-1978 the respondents along with some others trespassed into this area and erected a small shed in 'b' schedule property. They also installed a board "maija Arts Club". Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession under S. 6 of the specific Relief Act.

(2.) THE court below found that the plaintiff was not in actual possession of this property and therefore the prayer for recovery of possession was disallowed. However the court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and the respondents were restrained from causing hindrance to the plaintiff from using 'b' schedule property as a pathway as an access to the national highway from 'a' schedule property. THE counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that the court below ought to have granted recovery of possession.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that the court below has granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff and that was on the basis that the plaintiff was in possession of the property and therefore the prayer for recovery of possession also should have been allowed by the court. I am not inclined to accept this plea. THE prayer for injunction was allowed on the ground that 'b' schedule property can be used as an access to the national highway from 'a' schedule property. THE respondents were restrained from causing obstruction to the alleged pathway of the petitioners. Anyway the petitioner has not established that she is entitled to get possession of plaint 'b' schedule property under S. 6 of the Specific relief Act. THE court below has rightly dismissed the suit. THE civil revision petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. THE parties to bear their costs. Dismissed. . .