Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

c). That there is no access shown on the Government Survey Plan nor is any access recorded in the Survey Records in Form I and XIV of land under Survey No.39/4B.
d). That the property bearing Survey No.39/5 (Plaintiffs' property) is a garden land with a hut standing thereon, for storing of agricultural implements, and it rejects Plaintiffs case for temporary injunction holding that the land is not landlocked.

SUBMISSIONS:

9. It is the submission of Learned Advocate, Mr. Costa Frias, for the Appellants that the impugned Order suffers from perversity, for non- consideration of the relevant material on record, this material being the landlocked mutation of plot under Survey No.39/5 in relation to the original plot 39/4 and in relation to the sub-divided Survey 39/4 into plot 39/4-B. According to the Counsel, the perversity in the Judgment is further seen from the fact that it has not taken into consideration the affidavit of the original owner and predecessor-in-

14. Perusal of the Survey Plan produced by the Plaintiffs would show that 13th March 2026 AO- 7 -2026 w ca-18-2026 Survey No.39/5 is totally landlocked in the north-eastern corner of Survey No.39/4. Survey No.39/4 belonging to the Defendant No.5, as it originally stood, is a large property, which includes sub-division 39/4-B created in 2017, and there was no road passing through this land. Obviously, therefore, as the land originally stood, prior to all the sub-divisions being created and the Deeds of Sale being executed in favour of the Plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 and 2, Survey No.39/5 was fully landlocked and surrounded on two sides, i.e. the West and on the South by land under Survey No.39/4, and on the North, by the nullah. It is not in dispute that along the entire Eastern border from both Survey No.39/5 (Plaintiffs' property) and Survey No.39/4-B, there is a boundary wall, thereby rendering land under Survey No.39/5 fully landlocked.

15. The trial Court has totally missed out the fact that land under Survey No.39/5 was fully landlocked. It has not considered the Survey Plan as it stood prior to the creation of the sub-division and prior to the road coming into existence, which bifurcated land under Survey No. 39/4 belonging to Defendant No.5 into two parcels; the road, after dividing the land runs along the southern boundary of land under Survey No.39/4-B which was created only in the year 2017 by a sub- division. Thus, the landlocked property of the Plaintiffs under sub- division 5 of Survey No.39 would perhaps derive its access through Survey No.39/4 towards the West or through the triangular strip of Survey No.39/4 and through plot under Survey No.39/4-B to its south.

19. For the reasons state above, considering that the trial Court has clearly rendered findings as to the existence of the access and the fact that Plaintiffs' plot is landlocked which are perverse, and without considering the documents on record, the impugned Order would have to be quashed and set aside. Having concluded the existence of an access and the fact that the Plaintiffs' property under Survey No.39/5 is landlocked, the application for temporary injunction at Exhibit 4 would have to be granted in its totality.