SATHYAN AND OTHERS: Vs. VANAJA BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry in O.S.No.452 of 2008, followed by those of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur in A.S.No.31 of 2014, the defendants in O.S.No.452 of 2008 have come up in Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) This Court has admitted the Regular Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) The suit is one for perpetual injunction as well as mandatory injunction. Mandatory injunction has been sought for, for the restoration of plaint C schedule pathway to its original width of 7 feet. Perpetual injunction has been sought for, for restraining the defendants from causing obstructions to the plaintiffs' user over plaint C schedule pathway having a width of 7 feet. According to the plaintiff, the plaint C schedule pathway is passing through the southern side of the property of the defendants as well as the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has two items of properties scheduled as plaint A and plaint B schedule properties. It seems that the property of the defendants has been scheduled in the plaint. According to the plaintiff, plaint C schedule pathway passing through the southern side of the said properties has a width of 7 feet and that the defendants have trespassed into the portions of plaint C schedule pathway and reduced its width to 3 to 4 feet, and hence the suit.