P. NARAYANAN Vs. P.M. MADHAVAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, the plaintiff in O.S No.59 of 2015 before the court of Munsiff, Kuthuparamba has preferred this petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

(3.) Ext.P6 order was passed by dismissing I.A No.3187 of 2016 in the above suit whereby an amendment of the plaint was sought to be made by the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. In the plaint, it is prayed that the plaintiff/petitioner sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants and also for demarcating and putting up the boundaries of plaint 'C' schedule property. Apart from that, partition of the properties were also sought for. The plaintiff contended that he has a right over plaint 'D' schedule pathway through plaint 'B' schedule property. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, he has contended that the right of way obtained by him is in the nature of an easement by prescription. He wanted to amend the nature of right as easement by necessity. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff for the reason that the plaintiff's attempt is to change the nature and characteristic of the suit by effecting the amendment.