KAMALA DEVI AMMA Vs. RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.286/1993 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Wadakanchery are the appellants in S.A.No.622/99, while the plaintiff in O.S.No.285/93 on the file of the same court is the appellant in S.A.No.670/99. O.S.No.285/93 was filed by the appellant herein in S.A.No.670/1999 originally as O.S.605/88 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant who was the original respondent in that appeal in that case from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and cutting open a pathway through the plaint schedule property with following allegations:

(2.) The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement contending as follows :

(3.) The allegation that the property was originally a agricultural land and subsequently it was converted into paramba slowly etc. is not correct. It was lying as paramba for long time and the coconut trees in the property were aged more than 60 years. The defendant and his predecessor were using the pathway since long time and there was no impediment for taking the vehicle through the pathway. It is not correct to say that the plaintiff was enjoying the property by raising black gram cultivation which had not been obstructed by anyone. It is not true that the defendant's house and compound are lying at an elevation of 4 feet from the plaint schedule property. The thodu mentioned in the plaint is a small water chal to let out the water from the tank during rainy season. It does not impede the vehicular traffic through the way. It was also contented that the building of the defendant was used by the Health Department, Harijan Welfare Department and also as Congress Office. During occupation of these people, they were taking their vehicle through the pathway in the plaint schedule property. Suppressing all these facts the suit has been filed. The plaintiff had obstructed the pathway and began committing nuisance by leaving filthy articles that prompted the defendant to file the suit mentioned above. Since the defendant is not trying to put up a new pathway as claimed and their existed a pathway which has been suppressed by the plaintiff, she is not entitled to get injunction as prayed for. So he prayed for dismissal of the suit.