THOMMAN Vs. KURIAKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff who succeed in the Trial Court and rooted in the lower appellate Court is the appellant. The Sub Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove dedication of the road by the defendants.

(2.) Existence of the plaint schedule road since 1121 M.E is spoken to by Pw 1. In an earlier suit (O.S. 50 of 1958) with respect to the very same road pw. 3, an advocate commissioner had filed Exts. A-2 and B-l reports. pw. 3 has reported about the existence of the road in Ext. A-2 and estimated its age as 10 years. Along with Ext. A-2 report pw. 3 bad also filed a sketch showing the location of the road. in the present case pw. 7 commissioner has prepared Ext. C-l report and Ext. C-l (a) sketch. The sketch Ext. C-l (a) shows that the road branches from Kaliyar-Koduveli road and goes south up to Manchodu nilam. It is in evidence that thereafter the road passes through paddy fields leading to Neyyassery. Of course, the width of the road when it passes through the paddy

(3.) Apart from the commission report there is also the evidence of pw. 2, the executive officer of Kodikulam Panchayat who spoke about the plaint schedule road. Ext. A-3 is the road register maintained by the Panchayat. Item No. 17 in Ext. A-3 is the disputed road. Pw. 2 stated that this road is maintained by the Panchayat. pw. 5 President of the Panchayat since 1964 stated that on the basis of a mass petition that the Panchayat should maintain the road, it undertook the maintenance since 1958. Pw. 6 deposed that the persons of the locality with the consent of the land owners constructed the road up to Manchodu nilam and that he also participated in the construction works. The evidence unflinchingly establishes the existence of the road.