Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. As per the Plaint, the cause of action for filing the suit is that the plaintiff got information that the defendants 1 to 4 are making hasty preparation to carve out a new way through the plaint schedule property after cutting and removing the trees standing therein.

6. The defendants 1 to 5 filed Written Statement denying the allegations in the Plaint and opposing the suit claim and contending inter alia that as per Ext.A1, the plaintiff derived ownership and possession of only 11 cents of land; that a right of way along the western portion of the property covered by Ext.A1 is reserved for the beneficial enjoyment of the property owned by the donors which situate on the southern side of the property covered by Ext.A1; that the donors retained the property owned by them which is lying on the western side of the said 11 cents of land; that for providing a 12 feet width pathway towards the property owned by the donors, at the time of execution of Ext.A1, they reserved a right of way along with the property covered by Ext.A1; that since the easement right by grant is available to the defendants 1 to 3 through western portion of the said 11 cents of property for forming 12 feet width pathway, there is no meaning in the statement that no such way has come into existence; that the statement that the defendants 1 to 3 have no right to claim through the plaint schedule property in a width of more than 3 links is incorrect; that the defendants 1 to 3 have got every right to form a way having 12 feet width along with the western portion of the property covered by Ext.A1; and that the property retained by their donors and that the properties so retained by the donors are now owned and possessed by the defendants 1 to 3.

14. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that though the plaintiff derived only 11 cents, she is claiming 15.88 cents within his boundaries with a mala fide intention to trespass into the properties of the defendants; that the plaintiff ought to have scheduled the neighbouring properties also for fixation of boundaries; that the defendants being the successors in interest of the donors in Ext.A1 are entitled to get 12 feet width pathway through the property covered by Ext.A1.

15. I perused Ext.C2(a) Plan, in which a way having a width of 0.6 meters lying the north -south is identified and marked as GJKL inside on the western portion of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 6.43 Ares which is marked as plot No. GJIH. The said way is away from the plot MNIH having an extent of 5.27 Ares which is identified and marked as per the existing boundaries. At any rate, the said way does not pass through the 4.45 Ares covered by Ext.A1 gift deed, which is identified and marked as QPONIH. It probabilize the case of the plaintiff that she derived more extent than the property covered in Ext.A1. The defendants have not filed any Objection to the Commission Reports and Plan. They did not adduce any oral evidence. Though the contentions of the learned Counsel for the defendants is that the plaintiff is attempting to grab their properties, no such contention is there in the Written Statement filed by the defendants. The only claim is that they are entitled to get a way having a width of 12 feet through the western part of the gifted property. Though a right of way is reserved in Ext.A1 Gift Deed, the width of the said way is not stated. So, it could only be 3 links as found in Exhibit C2a plan. The defendants could not point out any material to get a pathway having a width of 12 feet.