A K SADANANDAN Vs. MANDAKINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in Ext.P1 suit filed before the Court of Munsiff, Alappuzha as O.S No.893 of 2015. The suit is one for a declaration of right of easement of necessity over plaint item No.3 pathway and a decree for consequential prohibitory injunction. Ext.P2 is the application for interim mandatory injunction alleging that on the eve of the suit, a temporary shed was constructed in item No.3, as described as item No.4 in the plaint schedule, obstructing the exercise of his easement of necessity to have access to a public road situated on the eastern side.

(3.) Ext.P3 is the copy of the Commissioner's report produced to establish that except the disputed pathway towards east, there is no other pathway available to the petitioner for ingress and egress.