SIMON Vs. N JAYANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for injunction in respect of an admitted pathway is the appellant. Defendants assigned the A schedule property to the plaintiff specifically mentioning that the plaintiff has a right of way on its western side. They do not retract from the grant; but contend that it is only a restricted right, which does not allow vehicular traffic.

(2.) A Commission was rightly deputed by the Trial Court and a plan prepared by the Advocate-Commissioner gives a clear picture of the lie of the lands and the length and width of the fairly long route.

(3.) The plaint A schedule property is only part of an extensive area bearing the 'same name. The defendants and their predecessors in interest were owners of the whole area. They sold the property part by part and the plaintiff is now the owner of plot A. Wynad road forms the western boundary of the entire land. It runs north-south. It branches off to the lands of the defendants to the east, extending to a length of about 80 ft. and maintaining a width of about 14 and half ft. It then takes a turn to the south; as it reaches the plaintiff's northern boundary, the width is reduced to 12 ft. and odd and this is maintained to form the western boundary of the plaint A schedule. Thus between the defendants' land and the plaintiff's property there is in fact, in existence a pathway measuring more than twelve feet in width.