Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
was examined as DW2 in this case. Thus, by virtue of Ext.A3 sale deed, Vilasini Vijayan obtained 21.250 cents of property. The property so assigned by Anthony in the name of Vilasini Vijayan is described as A schedule and the property assigned by Lonan in the name of Vilasini Vijayan is described as B schedule to Ext.A3 sale deed. The 1st appellant purchased the aforesaid 21.250 cents of land described in Ext.A3 sale deed as per Ext.B1 dated 31.01.1981. In Ext.A3 in B schedule, a pathway having a width of 18 links on the northern side of B schedule was provided for having access to the public road on the western side. The recital reads as follows;
".Gm fXaa" 870 :DaxdV\_"7mXm U_Xq`VHNaU XmE\Ua"
%D_f\ X5\ Ucf^y^]m:5{a" X5\ %U5^VUa" ?_ XmE\J_fa U?AaM^7Jm 18 \_"7mXm U`D_O_W XmE\Ja5b?_ I?_E^gy^Gm 7D^7DJ_HaUU5^VUaN^5aKa." On the strength of this recital, the learned senior counsel for the appellants would argue that a pathway on the northern side of Ext.A3 property starting from the public road on the west and leading to west has been provided as an easement by grant. The respondent do not dispute the grant as well as the width of the said pathway. While the R.S.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2008 ..6..
10. Mr.S.Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, would argue that there is no property described as plaint A schedule item No.2 and no such R.S.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2008 ..7..
property was retained by late Lonan when he executed Ext.A3 and when 18 links' width pathway was formed. According to the learned senior counsel, at the time of purchase of property covered under Ext.A3, the appellants were abroad. However, when they came to Kerala in 1995, two coconut saplings were seen planted in the pathway. The 1st appellant took the matter with the mother and brother of respondents, who undertook to remove the coconut saplings. By the time, a gate was also fixed on the pathway blocking the entry. As the saplings were not removed, on a complaint, the local authorities cut and removed the coconut trees and the gate put up obstructing the appellants' ingress and egress to their property. According to the appellants, it was on 11.08.2003 that the respondents forcibly enclosed a portion of 18 links' width pathway and put up a gate across the pathway after obtaining an order of temporary injunction. According to the appellants, by the installation of the gate, the appellants are prohibited from entering that portion of the pathway on the eastern side of the gate now put up. They would also R.S.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2008 ..8..
15. Now, the remaining question is regarding the 200 sq. links, which is described as item No.2 in plaint A schedule in OS No.1151/2003, which is now seen enclosed by the respondents installing a barbed wire fencing. According to the learned senior counsel for the respondents, each inch of the land other than the pathway is that of the respondents; and as the predecessor in interest of the appellants took the land with her eyes wide open, there cannot be any further increase in the width. Relying on Exts.C3 and C4, it was argued that at present, the width of the pathway is more than 18 links; and therefore, the appellants cannot claim any right over the enclosed portion.