T. PAILY, THEKKETHOTTIYIL Vs. A.L. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for recovery of possession based on title and permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the nature and character of the 'C' schedule way was ended in decree both in the Trial Court (Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha in O.S.No.708 of 1991) and the First Appellate Court (Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha in A.S.No.85 of 1996). Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the first, second and fourth defendants came up with this appeal.

(2.) The plaint 'A' schedule is the registered holding of plaintiff. 'B' schedule is the common pathway set apart under the parental document Ext.A2 partition deed. The defendant is the subsequent purchaser of one of the shares under the parental document. The plaint 'B' schedule is the common pathway set apart under the parental document. The 'C' schedule is the alleged portion wherein the defendant had demolished supporting ridge and excavated land.

(3.) The question came up for consideration is whether the First Appellate Court and the trial court are justified in granting a recovery of possession of a portion of way and whether it is permissible to defeat an obligation attached to the parental document unilaterally by one of the parties ?