ANNIE GRATIUS Vs. K C BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Kochi, in O.S.No.311 of 2011, followed by those of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kochi, in A.S.No. 47 of 2012, the plaintiffs have come up in Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit is one for declaration of the right of the plaintiffs to make use of plaint E schedule pathway passing through the property of the defendant and for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from causing any obstructions to plaint E schedule pathway by putting up any wall or compound wall.

(3.) The only case set up by the plaintiffs is that they are making use of plaint E schedule pathway, since they were kudikIdappukars and successors in interest of the kudikIdappukars in respect of their property. Apart from the said assertion, it has not been pleaded as to what exactly the right being claimed by the plaintiffs over the plaint E schedule pathway. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are claiming a right of way through plaint E schedule pathway allegedly passing through the portions of the property of the defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs are not entitled to make use of any such pathway or any of the portions of his property as a pathway. Both the courts below concurrently found that there are no pleadings enabling the plaintiffs to set up a case of easement by prescription or any other kind of easement and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration sought for as well as a decree of perpetual injunction sought for. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.