KANJANA Vs. DEVAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is in challenge of judgment and decree of learned Additional Munsiff, Cherthala in O.S.No.580 of 2007, confirmed by the learned Sub Judge, Cherthala in A.S.No.93 of 2010.

(2.) THE appellant/plaintiff sued the respondent/defendant for a declaration of right of easement by prescription and consequent prohibitory injunction. Appellant claimed that she is the owner in possession of item No.1 of the plaint schedule and by continuous, uninterrupted open, peaceful use of item No.2 as of right, as an easement for more than the statutory period she has acquired a right of easement by prescription over item No.2. Item No.2 is described as a way having width of one metre and length of 17 metres, allegedly originating from the Panchayat road on the extreme east, passing through the property of the respondent towards west and reaching plaint schedule item No.1. Courts below found against the plea of easement raised by the appellant and refused to grant relief.

(3.) THE learned counsel on both sides submitted that in view of the above, it is not necessary to call for records of the case or answer the substantial questions of law framed. The learned counsel also requested that a decree may be passed in terms of the settlement the parties have reached through their counsel and endorsed by them in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.