RAVEENDRAN Vs. KARTHIKEYAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order passed by the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara in C.M.A. 12 of 2011 confirming the order of the Munsiff's court in I.A. 134 of 2011 in O.S. 16 of 2011 dismissing the application for injunction filed by the plaintiffs in the suit as against the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, plaint A and B schedule properties belong exclusively to them having obtained it by virtue of the sale deed No.1999 of 2004 dated 2.12.2004. Plaint B schedule is the pathway. Defendants are alleged to be owners of the property on the northern and eastern sides of plaint A schedule property. It is pointed out that they have no rights over plaint A and B schedule properties and it exclusively belonged to the plaintiffs. Alleging that the defendants are threatening to OPC. 4244/2011. 2 interfere with the right of the plaintiffs over plaint A and B schedule properties, suit was laid. I.A.134 of 2011 is filed seeking interim injunction against the defendants.

(2.) The defendants resisted the suit. It was pointed out by them that the pathway in question has a width of 1.75 meters and that the plaintiffs have no exclusive right over the pathway. The sale deed relied on by the plaintiffs allows them only to use the pathway and the defendants are also entitled to use the said pathway. Relying on sale deed No.123 dated 17.1.1979, the defendants contended that it is clear from the said sale deed that the pathway was already in existence. Defendants laid claim over the pathway raising prescriptive right of easement.

(3.) Before the court below, plaintiffs had Exts.A1 to A3 marked and the commission reports and plans were marked as Exts.C1, C1(a), C2 and C2(a).