GOPALAN NAIR RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. RAJAMMA SUSEELAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Kollam in the common judgment in O.S.No.114/2002 and O.S.No.60/2007 followed by those of the Additional District Court-III, Kollam in A.S.No.112/2010 and A.S.No.113/2010, the plaintiff in O.S.No.60/2007 and the defendants in O.S.No.114/2002 have come up in second appeals.

(2.) O.S.No.60/2007 was filed by the appellant for a decree declaring her right of easement by way of prescription over plaint C schedule pathway passing through the property of the defendants and also for perpetual injunction from causing obstructions to the user of the pathway. O.S.No.114/2002 was filed by the defendants in O.S.No.60/2007 for a decree of perpetual injunction against trespass into their property and also from cutting open any new pathway through the said property. O.S.No.60/2007 was treated as the main case, in which evidence was recorded. The property of the appellant, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.60/2007, was scheduled in the plaint as A schedule and the property of the defendants is scheduled as plaint B schedule. The pathway claimed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.60/2007 is scheduled as plaint C schedule item. The parties are hereinafter referred to as in their status shown in O.S.No.60/2007. The properties of the parties are also described as scheduled in O.S.No.60/2007.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, she purchased plaint A schedule property in the year 1971 and she put up a building in plaint A schedule property in such a manner that building is facing south. According to her, the building was put up in such a way as it is facing towards south, solely because of the reason that the plaint C schedule pathway starts from the southern boundary of her property and it reaches the main road from the plaint B schedule property. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff and her neighbours have been making use of plaint C schedule pathway for access to the southern main road openly and continuously as of right for more than 20 years and therefore, her right over the plaint C schedule pathway had matured into a right of easement by prescription.