PAULOSE Vs. ROY ABRAHAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of remand passed by the Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha in A.S.No.22 of 2015, the appellant has come up in this appeal.

(3.) Appellant approached the court below with a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction and damages. Plaint A schedule property belongs to the appellant in ownership and he is in possession of the same. He acquired the property as per Ext.A8. Property lies with distinct boundaries and it is separated from neighbours' properties by a stone kayyala. A mud road commences from Piravom-Koothattukulam public road and it goes towards south. It is used for ingress and egress to plaint A schedule property as well as Thalachira property. On the south of plaint A schedule property, land belonging to Kunnummel Joseph is situate. At present, it is possessed by the 2nd defendant. Defendants attempted several times to cut open a pathway by demolishing the northern and southern kayyalas of plaint A schedule property. Several litigations were fought between the parties and actions were initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Criminal cases were also filed by the appellant. When the defendants demolished concrete pillars and kayyala to a length of 4 ft. on either side, the appellant/plaintiff approached the court below with the above suit.