Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The defendants resisted the suit. They denied the allegations in the plaint. It was pointed out by them that the entire facts are not disclosed by the plaintiff and that he was not entitled to any reliefs. According to the defendants, the plaint schedule property is the tharawadu property. There was a partition in the year 1987. It was pointed out that there is a Sarpakavu on the western side  of the plaint schedule property. The members of the tharawadu are, as a matter of right, entitled to worship there and the plaintiff is not entitled to obstruct them. On the basis of these contentions, they prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

8. On a close evaluation of the evidence in the case, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendants have miserably failed to prove the customary right of the family members to worship at the Sarpakavu and the right to use the way through the plaint schedule property. Based on these findings, OS No.1331/99 was decreed and the other suit was dismissed. The said Judgment and decree was confirmed in appeal. Hence the Second Appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence in the case and has misdirected itself both on law and on facts. It is also pointed out that there is a Sarpakavu in the property owned by the plaintiffs in OS No.1331/99 and the courts below were not justified in not recognising the same just because, that is not seen mentioned in Ext.A2 document. It is also pointed out that there is a Commissioner's report, which shows the existence of Sarpakavu there.

10. The above contentions have no basis whatsoever. As rightly noticed by the courts below, if as a matter of right, there was a Sarpakavu in the property now owned by the plaintiff to which the members of the family had access, that would have certainly found a place in the partition deed executed by the members of the tharawadu. The absence of Sarpakavu in the deed raises doubts regarding the existence of the Sarpakavu. Apart from that, Exts.C1 Commissioner's report and C2 sketch belie the claim made by the appellants.

11. The Trial Court has adverted to the Commissioner's report in detail and has found that the place where the defendants claim that a Sarpakavu existed, is in fact a pathway and that a Sarpakavu could not have been in existence at all. It is true that the Commissioner was able to locate a mandapam. But, it is far from saying that it is a Sarpakavu to which the members of the tharawadu had a right of access. It is interesting to note that the wife of the plaintiff was examined as DW3. She  spoke against the defendants and they stood by her evidence.