Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The brief averment of the written statement in O.S.No.516/1995 filed by D1 and adopted by D2 and D3 are as follows:

The scheduled property belongs to the plaintiff pursuant to the partition deed as well as the release deed has to be proved by the plaintiff. It is not true that the defendants are residing on the northern side of the plaintiff's property. It is also false to state that these defendants are enjoying the property upto the extent of stone ridge and mud pond and it is also equally false to state that the defendants' lands are higher in level of two feet. It is also imaginary to state that the defendants tried to encroach upon the property of the plaintiff on 20.11.1995. The property of the defendants on the northern side of the plaintiff's property belongs to them pursuant to the sale deeds dated 10.4.1972, 30.6.1976 and 29.3.1985. The defendants are enjoying the property by using the track found on the southern side of the land, as enjoyed by their predecessors in title for more than 60 years. The foot pathway having a width of 7 links on the northern side of the said path way is reaching towards the town of Paramour and this pathway was used by the defendants' men continuously from long ago. On the northern side of the seven links pathway, the defendants agricultural land are situated. Taking advantage of the mud pond in between the plaintiffs and the defendants agricultural land, the plaintiff now come forward with the suit by denying the seven links pathway. The defendant has no objection in cultivating the lands of the plaintiff excepting the seven links pathway. There is no cause of action for the suit and the suit be dismissed with costs.

4.The brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.216/1996 are as follows:

The scheduled properties are belonging to the plaintiff under the registered Sale Deeds, dated 10.04.1992. 30.06.1976 and 28.03.1985 and they are enjoying the same. The plan attached to this plaint illustrated the plaintiff as well as the defendants' property as well as 15 links width pathway ABCD as well as seven links pathway EFGH. On the southern side of the above said two pathways, the defendants are having agricultural land. ABCD cart track is used by the plaintiff's predecessors in title for more than 60 years and the same is also used by the plaintiff. The EFGH Pathway is 1 to 1 = feet below the level of the plaintiff's land and the same is used by the plaintiff and this pathway is end with cart track towards the town of Paramour. Out of ill-will, the defendant built four ponds between the pathway. After the intervention of the panchayatars. the same obstruction was removed. Again, the defendants' attempted to prevent the plaintiff in using EFGH pathway. The plaintiff's acquire the right over this pathway under easement of necessity and also prescription. Except the pathway, no other path way is available to the plaintiff and prayed for a decree and judgment for declaration ABCD 15 links pathway as well as EFGH seven links pathway and consequent injunction with costs.