THARAMANNIL KORAMBAYIL AYISHA Vs. SRAMBIKKAL ABDU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.781 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Munsiff, Manjeri. The suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction with the following plaint averments:

(2.) Defendants 2 and 3 (respondents) filed a written statement contending that plaint A schedule property is a pathway which was in existence long time before. Plaintiff has no title or possession over plaint A schedule pathway. Ext.A1 is created for the purpose of filing the suit to defeat the interest of the defendants. Plaint A and B schedule properties, along with adjacent properties, were in the joint possession and enjoyment of Raru Panicker and Kanna Panicker. They partitioned the property in the year 1959 as per Ext.A4 document, which is the same as Ext.B1. A pathway was carved out between the two properties belonging of Raru Panicker and Kanna Panicker. There is a specific covenant to that effect in the partition deed. In 1959, the 3rd defendant purchased 15.5 cents through Ext.B4 from Raru Panicker and even in that document, the northern boundary was shown as pathway. The said pathway is in existence long before the suit. That is the subject matter of the suit. The defendants have also claimed easement by prescription by making necessary pleadings.

(3.) The trial court, relying on the testimony of PW-1 and DW-1, and also on Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B5 and C1 to C3 series, Commissioner's report, found that the plaintiff failed to prove any right or possession over plaint A schedule property and the suit was dismissed.