Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. After issues were framed, the parties went for trial in which the plaintiff figured as the sole witness (PW1) on his side and produced Exs.A1 to A6. The first defendant Rajaraman figured as the sole witness (DW1) on the side of the appellants herein/defendants and they produced Exs.B1 to B5.

8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence, relying on Ex.A5, xerox copy of the building plan allegedly obtained by the appellants herein/defendants and also making an observation that the appellants / defendants had not produced sufficient documentary evidence in respect of the 'B' schedule property, arrived at the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to the relief in respect of the plaint 'B' schedule property. In the appeal filed before the lower appellate Court, additional documents were produced on both sides and they were marked as Exs.A7 to A9 and Exs.B6 and B7. The learned lower appellate Judge, relying on Ex.A8, the plan for R.S.No.79, in which the northern portions of S.Nos.79/8, 79/9 and 79/10 have been subdivided into 79/8A, 9A and 10A1 held that the portions thus sub-divided and assigned the sub-division numbers 8A, 9A and 10A of S.No.79 formed the road providing as an access for the respondent/plaintiff to reach the north-south road on the west which connects the east-west road running on the north. Since admittedly a portion of the property designated with the above said sub-division in S.No.79/8 was claimed to be part of the property of the appellants /defendants and pillars were put up to provide a portico in the southern part of S.No.79/8A, the learned lower appellate Judge chose to hold that the appellants/defendants did not have the right to do so, which would have the effect of depriving the respondent/plaintiff of his right of easement to reach the North-South road which connects the East  West Road running on the north. The learned lower appellate Judge also relied on Ex.A5 to arrive at such a conclusion.