Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

These Second Appeals arise from common judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge, Tirur in A.S.Nos.121 of 1998, 123 of 1998 and 122 of 1998 arising from common judgment and decree of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Ponnani in O.S.Nos.175 of 1992, 203 of 1992 and 205 of 1992. The dispute is concerning width of the disputed pathway. Courts below concurrently found that the width is 5.5 to 6 feet. O.S.No.175 of 1992 has been decreed while the other suits were dismissed. Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 in O.S.No.175 of 1992 , plaintiff in O.S.No.203 of 1992 and plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No.205 of 1992 have preferred these Second Appeals, respectively. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as in O.S.No.175 of 1992 (from which R.S.A.No. 392 of 2009 arises).

2. Plaint A schedule property in O.S.No.175 of 1992 belonged to Menath Arumughan as per assignment deed dated 9.1.1968 and that was purchased by the plaintiff. He got purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal. Plaint B schedule is the disputed way which the plaintiff claimed, himself and his predecessors were enjoying for access to the plaint A schedule for more than 20 years, as of right, peacefully and openly without interruption and thus perfected right of easement by way of description. He claimed that the width of  RSA Nos.392, 979 & 1188/2009 the way is 5 to 6 feet. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have property on its northern side and there is a fence demarcating plaint B schedule and the said property of defendant Nos.1 to 5. Property of defendant No.6 is on south of plaint B schedule. That property is separated from the pathway by a ridge. Alleging interference by defendants to his user of plaint B schedule plaintiff filed O.S.No.175 of 1992. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 contended that plaint B schedule and other items belonged to Pallath Ittiyuran, father of defendant No.6 as per kanam assignment deed No.531 of 1914 and after his death there was a partition. The plaint B schedule was set apart to the share of defendant No.6. On the west of plaint A schedule there is paddy field. Defendants denied that plaintiff or his predecessor were using plaint B schedule pathway and alleged that they have alternative access to plaint A schedule. At any rate the width of plaint B schedule is only two feet and plaintiff attempted to widen the pathway. O.S.No.203 of 1992 is filed for a mandatory injunction to direct plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 1992 to restore plaint B schedule pathway to its original state regarding width. Alleging trespass and widening of the pathway defendants filed O.S.No.205 of 1992 against plaintiff for recovery of possession of the alleged trespassed area. Courts below found against the contention of defendants (in O.S.No.175 of 1992), found from the evidence that width of the pathway is 5 to 6 feet and accordingly granted relief in O.S.No.175 of 1992. Consequently, the other suits were dismissed. First appellate court concurred with the finding of learned Munsiff-Magistrate. Hence these Second Appeals.  RSA Nos.392, 979 & 1188/2009

4. What remained for consideration is only regarding width of the pathway which according to the plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 1992 is 5 to 6 feet while the contesting defendants contend that width is only two feet. Advocate commissioners appointed in the respective cases inspected the property. Ext.C1 is the report and Ext.C2, the sketch submitted by advocate commissioner in O.S.No.175 of 1992. Commissioner inspected the property on the next day of institution of the suit. In Ext.C1, Commissioner reported that average width of the pathway is 5.5 to 6 feet though at one portion the width is upto seven (7) feet. Same commissioner inspected the property on 23.11.1994 as per order in O.S.No.205 of 1992. Exts.C3 and C4 are the report and plan. There also commissioner reported width of the pathway as 5.5 to 6 feet. It is true that at certain portions trunk of trees protruded into the pathway but that can only be on account of passage of time. In O.S.No.205 of 1992 commissioner visited the property on 17.11.1995 and submitted Exts.C5 and C6, report and plan. There, width of the disputed pathway at the western extremity is stated as 6.9 feet and eastern extremity as 4.9 feet. Appellate court considered the issue and found that average width of the pathway is 5.5 to 6 feet and that the pathway is clearly identifiable from the reports and sketches/plan prepared by advocate commissioners. These findings are based on evidence on record cannot be said  RSA Nos.392, 979 & 1188/2009 to be perverse and hence present no substantial question of law.

5. So far the contention based on Section 22 of the Act is concerned, the servient owner can confine the right to a determinate part of the servient heritage but without detriment to the dominant owner. In this case, confinement of the pathway having width of 5.5. to 6 feet to any lesser width will be detrimental to the dominant owner, plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 1992. Section 22 of the Act is clear and it does not require a debate in view of the settled position of law. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants/defendants I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved requiring this Court to admit these Second Appeals and issue notice to the respondents.