Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.1. The respondent/plaintiff in RSA No.61/2016 claimed that she is the owner in possession of the plaint 'A' schedule property. The title to the aforesaid property is traced to a Partition Deed No.459 executed in the year 1950. According to the plaintiff, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property ever since she was assigned the property. The plaint 'A' schedule property is demarcated with well-defined boundaries.

RSA Nos.61 & 897/2016 2025:KER:64138 Approximately 11/2 Acres of land laying adjacent to the plaint 'A' schedule property was acquired by the Government for Government Girls High School, Chavara. Subsequently, that property was transferred for establishing Government College, Chavara. The property situated on the western side of the plaint 'A' schedule property and the property acquired for the construction of the Government College, Chavara, are now in the possession of the 1st defendant. There is a pathway starting from the N.H.47 situated on the eastern side of the property of the 1 st defendant and used by the plaintiff for ingress and egress to the plaint 'A' schedule property. The said pathway, which is mentioned in the Panchayat Register and maintained by the Panchayat, is scheduled as 'B' schedule property. The pathway further runs towards the north and thereafter turns to the east and going to Vengoli. The said pathway is having a width of 5 1/2 metres and a length of 35 metres. The property of the Government College, Chavara, is situated on the north of the said 'B' schedule pathway and there are electric posts in the 'B' schedule pathway and that the defendants have no right to close down the said pathway and obstruct the right of the plaintiff. The defendants are attempting to construct boundary wall for the properties of the Government College, Chavara enclosing 'B' schedule pathway, and since the plaintiff received reliable information from the contractor, who is making RSA Nos.61 & 897/2016 2025:KER:64138 constructions for the 1st defendant, to the above effect and also that the construction will start on 07.10.1998, the suit has been instituted.

5. Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil - learned counsel appearing for the appellant in RSA No.897/2016, would support the arguments of the State and, in addition, would contend that, going by the RSA Nos.61 & 897/2016 2025:KER:64138 schedule to the plaint, the plaintiff had claimed right over 5 1/2 metres width pathway having a length of 35 metres. However, in the report of the advocate commissioner, it is clearly found that the pathway, as described in 'B' schedule to the plaint does not exist. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, since the description of the pathway as made in 'B' schedule is not available, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.