MARIAMMA JOHN Vs. BABY GEORGE MUNDAPPALLILAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from the common judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla in A.S Nos.10 and 11 of 2005 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, Thiruvalla in O.S.Nos.523 of 1998 and 131 of 1999.

(2.) RESPONDENT filed the suits against the appellant and the first defendant for a decree for prohibitory injunction. In O.S No.523 of 1998, the prayer was for injunction to restrain the appellant and the first defendant from carving out a path way through the plaint schedule property(item No.1), described as 1.09 hectors in Re.survey No.201/4. Respondent claimed title and possession of the said property as per registered Will No.141of 1998. He claimed that property on the west of item No.1 belongs to the appellant and the first defendant and is situated at a lower level from item No.1. The properties are lying in slop towards west and accordingly is the natural flow of water. Through the property of appellant and the first defendant there is a water chal having width of 5 feet and length of 60 feet (described as Item No.3 in O.S No.523 of 1998). Respondent alleged that the appellant and the first defendant are attempting to closs the said water chal there by blocking flow of water from east to west during rainy season. He also apprehended that the appellant and the first defendant might convert the thodu on the southern side of item No.1 (described as item No.2 in O.SNo.523 of 1998) into a road. He prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction against that as well. In O.S No.131 of 1999 also, respondent claimed a decree for prohibitory injunction on the strength of easement by prescription over the water chal (item No.3 in O.S No. 523 of 1998).

(3.) JUDGMENT and decree of the trial court were challenged before the learned Sub Judge, in A.S Nos.10 of 2005 and 11 of 2005. The appeals were dismissed. Hence this second appeal.