EDAKUDI RAVEENDRAN @ RAVI S/O.MOOTHORAKUTTY, RESIDING AT KARUVASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK Vs. LOHITHAKSHAN S/O. MADHAVI, RESIDING AT MAYANTHARA NILATHIL, POST KARUVASSERI, KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Principal Munsiff's Court-I, Kozhikode in O.S.No.197/1985 followed by those of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode in A.S.No.69/2011, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.197/85 has come up with this second appeal.

(2.) This case has a checkered career. The proceedings were initiated in the year 1985, and it still continues. The suit was originally filed as one for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from obstructing the plaintiffs from using plaint B schedule pathway and from causing any obstructions on it.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, they were using plaint B schedule item as of right, openly and continuously, following their predecessors-in-interest of plaint A schedule property, as of right, from time immemorial. Plaint B schedule item is a pathway to have access to their house as well as the temple situated at the corner of plaint A schedule property. They have claimed that plaint B schedule item starts from the Kanoli Kanal Road situated at the eastern side of the property of the defendants and it reaches the plaint A schedule property. Plaint B schedule item is described in the plaint as a pathway leading to plaint A schedule property, having a length of 150 feet, lying east west, and a width of 6 feet lying north south. According to the plaintiffs, originally, the first defendant had purchased the property lying at the northern side of plaint B schedule pathway and subsequently she purchased the property lying at the southern side of the pathway also. Precisely, it is alleged that the first defendant or any other defendants have no manner of right or title over plaint B schedule pathway and the pathway was in existence even prior to the purchase of the northern property as well as southern property by the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, they have perfected their right of easement by prescription over the plaint B schedule item.