VENKIDESH, Vs. VIDYADHARAN AND MURALEEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O.S.442/2001 on the file of Munsiff Court, Aluva are the appellants. Respondents are the defendants. Appellants instituted the suit seeking a declaration of right of way over plaint B schedule property by easement of prescription and easement of necessity contending that it is the only way leading to the plaint A schedule property belonging to the appellants. It was contended that plaint B schedule property is having a width of 2 = meters and length of 30 meters which lies east west and joins the plaint schedule property and connect to the eastern road. It was contended by the appellants that plaint A schedule property originally belonged to the second appellant on tenancy right and under Ext.A1 settlement deed it was granted in favour of first appellant and plaint A schedule property and the surrounding property originally belonged to the same jenmi and was severed when the jenm right of the plaint A schedule property was purchased from Land Tribunal and there is no other way to the plaint A schedule property and so appellants are entitled to get a right of way by easement of necessity over the plaint B schedule property. It was contended that appellants have been using the plaint B schedule property for the last several years as a right as an easement and without obstruction for the last several years and therefore they have prescribed a right of way by easement of prescription and respondents are not entitled to obstruct the same and therefore they are entitled to get a decree for declaration and injunction.

(2.) RESPONDENTS in the written statement disputed the claim. It was contended that appellants have no right of way through plaint B schedule property and it is part of their property and though appellants have been using a portion of the property, it was not as of right but as per permission granted and respondents have no intention to obstruct the same.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for appellants was heard.