IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 240 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2008 IN IA 523/08 IN OS.435/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS ----------------------------- 1. BABY, AGED 65, SON OF LATE MATHAI CHENGAMANADAN HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. ALIYAS, AGED 62, SON OF LATE MATHAI CHENGAMANADAN HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 3. GEORGE, AGED 57, SON OF LATE MATHAI CHENGAMANADAN HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 4. LEELA, AGED 55 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MATHAI, CHENGAMANADAN HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 5. MOLLY, AGED 49, DAUGHTER OF LATE MATHAI CHENGAMANADAN HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 6. LISSY, AGED 46, DAUGHTER OF LATE MATHAI CHENGAMANADAN HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SABU FRANCIS SRI.C.T.APPACHEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------- 1. JOSEPH @ JOSE, AGED ABOUT 59 SON OF LATE ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT PULAKUDIYIL HOUSE KEERAMPARA KARA, KEERAMPARA VILLAGE. 2. JOMON, AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF JOSEPH RESIDING AT PULAKUDIYIL HOUSE KEERAMPARA KARA, KEERAMPARA VILLAGE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 240 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of Munsiff, Muvattupuzha in I.A.523/08 in O.S.435/07. The learned counsel for the petitioner had taken me through the reliefs claimed in the suit. The reliefs are one for a declaration of the easement right by prescription over the D schedule property and another for a permanent injunction with respect to the F schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their predecessor by virtue of a document in the year 1981 has purchased the F schedule property. The rival contentions is to the effect that they had never obtained possession of the property and it has become part and parcel of the church property. So far as it relates to G schedule is concerned it is a right acquired under the prescriptive easement so necessarily the plaintiff has to admit the title of another person. If he is able to establish that he is using the pathway CRP NO. 240 of 2008 -:2:- as embodied in the Easement Act he will be entitled to the protection of that property. The Court below has applied its mind properly and had arrived at a decision. Therefore the CRP is dismissed. But I make it clear that it will not debar the plaintiff from adducing evidence in support of his contentions and even examining the Commissioner to prove the facts which he wants to prove in the case. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-