Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The 1st defendant alone filed Written Statement. He raised a Counter Claim also. According to the 1 st defendant, the 1st defendant alone is having property on the side of plaint B schedule pathway which is having a width of 3 links only. The defendants 2 to 3 are unnecessary parties in the suit. The plaintiffs has got right only over a pathway having a width of 3 links. The plaintiff filed the suit after demolishing the survey stones and after enhancing the width of the pathway to 2 meters. The 1st defendant derived the Counter Claim Item No.1 property as per Ext.B4 document of the year 1992. The property of the 1 st defendant encroached by the plaintiff to widen the way is included as Counter Claim Item No.2. The 1 st defendant sought for declaring his title over Counter Claim Item No.1 and to recover the possession of Counter Claim Item No.2 RSA NO. 459 OF 2024 5 2024:KER:71090 property from the plaintiff and a decree for fixing the boundaries Counter Claim Item Nos.1 and 2 properties and for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the Counter Claim Item No.1 property.

5. Though the plaintiff appeal before the First Appellate court, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

6. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. R. Kishore.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the RSA NO. 459 OF 2024 6 2024:KER:71090 Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court committed mistake in relying on Ext.C2(b) plan. The properties ought to have been measured in accordance with the Survey Plan available with the Government. Plaint B schedule pathway having a width of 2 meters was kept apart from the date of execution of Ext.B1 Partition Deed. Even if it is not proved, Ext.C2(b) plan would show that the said 3 links width pathway is widened using the properties surrendered by the land owners on the western side. The 3 links pathway is shown in yellow colour, the widened portion on the western side is shown in green colour and the Counter Claim Item No.2 property is shown in violet colour in Ext.C2(b). The Trial Court entered a wrong finding that the plaint B schedule pathway is having only a width 3 links without taking onto account the widening on the western side.

8. On perusing the records, it is seen that the 1 st defendant produced Exts.B1 and B2 documents which are the prior title deeds of the plaint A schedule property belonged to the RSA NO. 459 OF 2024 7 2024:KER:71090 plaintiff. It shows that the width of pathway mentioned therein is having a width of 3 links. The width of pathway is not stated in Ext.A1 title deed of the plaintiff. Relying on Exts.B1 and B2 the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court rejected the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff that the width of the pathway is 2 meters. I do not find any illegality in the said judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

9. As per the decree granted by the Trial Court in the Counter Claim, the portion which is allowed to be recovered by the 1st defendant is only 'LMHG' which is shown as counter claim item No.2 property in Ext.C2(b). It is situated on the eastern side of the 3 links pathway. The LM line shown in Ext.C2(b) is the line which is situated on the western side of LMHG plot. It does not take in the green shaded portion in Ext.C2(b) Plan which is the area surrendered by the land owners on the western side. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has not granted any relief with respect RSA NO. 459 OF 2024 8 2024:KER:71090 to the green shaded portion which is situated on the western side of the 3 links pathway which is the yellow shaded portion in Ext.C2(b). Hence there could not be any apprehension on the part of the appellant that the finding of the Trial court as well as the First Appellate Court that the width of the pathway is 3 links would create a wrong impression that including the green shaded portion the width of the pathway is only 3 links. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court expressed that the width of the pathway is only 3 links with reference to the yellow shaded portion, which is found to be the pathway referred in Exts.B1 and B2.