PAILAPPAN Vs. SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. 449 of 1973 of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. His suit for injunction though decreed by the Trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) Plaint A schedule property lies in between items 1 and 2 of B schedule. Plaintiff claims to be in exclusive possession of it. Plaintiff contends that A schedule property is the only way to his property from the main road and sought injunction against the defendants from obstructing his user of the property and taking income from it Defendants denied the plaintiff's possession over the plaint A schedule property. They also denied the existence of any pathway as alleged in the plaint. First defendant contended that A schedule property is in his actual possession and it is included in the documents in his favour. Second defendant also denied the existence of the pathway and further stated that be has not threatened to trespass upon the property in the possession of the plaintiff

(3.) The Trial Court on a consideration of the entire evidence upheld the existence of the pathway leading to the plaintiff's property. In Ext. C-6 plan the pathway leading to the property of the plaintiff is demarcated. Plot BEHC in Ext. C-6 in the plaint A schedule property. Plot EFGH is admittedly the property in the possession of the first defendant. This is described as item No. 1 in B schedule to the plaint. Plot ABCD is the property in the possession of Lonappan This is described as item No. 2 in the B schedule. Property belonging to the plaintiff lies on the western side. Several documents produced in the case sufficiently clearly proved the existence of A schedule pathway. Exts. A-4 to A-12 and A-14 unequivocally established the existence of the pathway in between the first defendant's property situated in R. S.91/4 and the property in the possession of Lonappan in R. S.91/5. The commissioner's report and plan lend considerable support to the plaintiff's case regarding the pathway (A. schedule property) from Guruvayur-Enamavu road to his property. In view of the above overwhelming evidence denial of the pathway ia only an exercise in futility.