Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. It is true that presently the trial court has stated in the judgment that the plaint B schedule item is identifiable. In what sense such a statement has been made is not available from the judgment. It seems that the lower appellate court has also not interfered with the said finding entered by the trial court. At the same time, this Court has to consider whether a decree can be passed in respect of plaint B schedule item. Ext.C3(b) is the plan prepared by the surveyor, who accompanied the Advocate Commissioner. In Ext.C3, a pathway has been shown across the property of the plaintiffs having a width of 2.5 metres north south and having a length of 45.80 metres east west, which leads to Edakkudikkavu wherein the temple is R.S.A.1222 of 2013 situated. The said access commences from the road presently situated at the eastern side of the plaint A schedule property and the western side of the properties of the defendants. Originally, the claim in respect of the lie of the plaint B schedule item is that it connects Kanoli Kanal Road and the plaint A schedule property, and that on either side of plaint B schedule item, there lies the properties of the defendants. In Ext.C3(b) some dotted lines are shown as Z - Z1 and Z2 - Z3, as the portion through which a pathway was being claimed by the plaintiffs. It has been specifically noted in Ext.C3(b) that at the time of preparation of the said plan there was no such pathway in existence. Even according to Ext.C1 report filed by the first Commissioner, the width of then existing pathway which the said Commissioner could find through the properties of the defendants was a 'beaten track' having a width varying from 2 feet to 2.5 feet. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that in Ext.C4(b) plan the said portion of the R.S.A.1222 of 2013 pathway has been marked as one having a width of 1.22 metre. It has been specifically stated in Ext.C4(b) also that there was no such pathway in existence at the time when Ext.C4(b) was prepared.

14. In order to point out the existence of a pathway, the learned counsel for the appellants has invited the attention of this Court to Ext.X1 plan which was admitted by the defendants. It is true that in Ext.X1, such a pathway is shown; at the same time, no measurements are available in Ext.X1 in order to fix the location of such a pathway, by showing its length and its width.

15. In order to grant the reliefs prayed for in the plaint, there should be a plan having sufficient measurements, showing the actual lie of the properties and the existing pathway, prepared by a competent surveyor. In the absence of any such plan, this Court is of the view that a decree cannot be passed in terms of the plaint.

16. Another fatal aspect is the description of plaint B R.S.A.1222 of 2013 schedule item. As per the description of plaint B schedule item, the pathway is one having a length of 150 feet east west, and having a width of six feet south north. There is absolutely nothing to show that a pathway having the descriptions given in plaint B schedule item was there in existence. Even Ext.C2 sketch also does not coincide with the descriptions of plaint B schedule item.

17. In the plan, the plaintiffs have averred that their predecessors-in-interest, and in continuation the plaintiffs, had been using the plaint B schedule item openly, continuously and uninterruptedly, as of right, from time immemorial. The question to be considered is whether such averments could bring out a right to claim a pathway by way of easement by prescription.