Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Plaint schedule Item No.1 admittedly belongs to the plaintiff. There exists a pathway having a width of 2.5 links on the southern side of plaint item No.1 and southern side of the property of the fourth defendant and on the southern side of the property of one Sukumara Pillai. The property on the southern side of the pathway (having a width of 2.5 links ) belonged to Kamalakshy Amma, mother of the third defendant. The  R.S.A. No. 636 OF 2005 property of the plaintiff, the property of Sukumara Pillai and the property of 4th defendant as well as that of Kamalakshy Amma originally belonged to one family. By transfer, Kamalakshy Amma, plaintiff, fourth defendant and Sukumara Pillai got the properties referred to above. On the southern side of the 2.5 links' width pathway, Kamalakshy Amma was holding 40 cents of land. In the year 1976, as per Ext. A1, Kamalakshy Amma and her son assigned an extent of 2.25 cents of land to the plaintiff. The property covered by Ext. A1 lies immediately on the southern side of the pathway having a width of 2.5 links. Plaint Item No.2 consists of pathway having 2.5 links as well as the property covered by Ext. A1. According to the plaintiff, Ext. A1 property was purchased for the purpose of widening the existing pathway and to provide a motorable road to his property.

3. The contention raised by the appellant (third defendant) is that there exists a public pathway from time immemorial having a width of 2.5 links. The pathway did not end near the property of the plaintiff, but it goes further westwards. The  R.S.A. No. 636 OF 2005 plaintiff as well as the defendants have equal rights to use that pathway. After the pathway was widened annexing Ext. A1 property, the appellant (the third defendant) and other parties would get same right to use the pathway as before.

5. According to the plaintiff, the appellant could claim only a right to have access to the road on the eastern side and such a right cannot be claimed through plaint item No.2. Even if the  R.S.A. No. 636 OF 2005 property on the southern side of the pathway was subsequently converted into different plots, that is not a ground for claiming a right of way through plaint item No.2, if the defendants had no legal right to use plaint item No.2 as a pathway.

6. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence in detail held that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for injunction against defendants 1 to 3. However, the trial court held that the fourth defendant has a right to use the pathway having a width of 2.5 links since his property lies on the northern side of the pathway. The pleadings, facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record were elaborately considered by the trial court in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent prohibitory injunction. On appeal, the lower appellate court also considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record and held that the trial court was right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for injunction.

7. The case that originally there existed a public pathway  R.S.A. No. 636 OF 2005 having a width of 2.5 links is not established by the defendants. Ext. A1 property was annexed to the then existing pathway is an undisputed fact. However, if it is not proved that there existed a public pathway, defendants 1 to 3 would not be entitled to claim a right of way as claimed by them. After the 2.5 links' width pathway is cut off from the southern property by virtue of Ext. A1 sale deed executed by Kamalakshy Amma and her son, they could not claim any right to have an entry to the northern pathway except in case they could establish an easement of necessity. It is clear from the facts that the property owned and possessed by Kamalakshy Amma was bounded by a public road on the eastern side. The fact that the southern property having an extent of 40 cents was subsequently dealt with by Kamalakshy Amma and her legal representatives is not a ground to claim a new right through Ext. A1 property so as to have access to the 2.5 links' width pathway. The pathway having a width of 2.5 links was not being used by defendants 1 to 3 after the execution of Ext. A1 sale deed. Defendants 1 to 3 cannot  R.S.A. No. 636 OF 2005 claim any right over Ext.A1 property and therefore they cannot claim any right to enter into the plaint schedule item No.2 and to use it as a motorable pathway.