FRANCIS Vs. VARGHESE THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent decree in a suit for fixation of boundary and prohibitory injunction is assailed by the defendants.

(2.) Plaint item numbers 1 and 2 belong to the plaintiff. Plaint item No.3 is described as a pathway having a width of nine links. Item 3 pathway lies in between plaint item nos.1 and 2, item no.1 being on its south and item no.2 on its north. Plaint item no.3 pathway starts from the eastern public road and proceeds towards west, leading to the properties of the defendants. The suit is filed on the allegation that attempts are being made by the defendants to widen the width of item 3 pathway, in the course of which a portion of the northern boundary kayyala of plaint item no.1 was demolished.

(3.) The defendants deny the plaintiffs claim that the plaint item no.3 pathway has a width of only nine links and contend that the said way has a width of 3.5 metres; that it has been in existence from time immemorial and is being used by the residents on the western side including the defendants.