IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24226 of 2010(O) -------------------------- CMA.42/2008 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.870/2007 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- A.R.MURALEEDHARAN, RETIRED BANK MANAGER, HOUSE NO.G.R.A. 52, GANDIPURAM, CHILAMPIL LANE, SREEKARIYAM MURI, PANGAPPARA VILLAGE, KAZHAKUTTAM FIRKA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- DR.P.A.THOMAS PANCHAMOOTTIL, G.R.A.53, GANDIPURAM, CHILAMPIL LANE, SREEKARIYAM MURI, PANGAPPARA VILLAGE, KAZHAKUTTAM FIRKA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 24226 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against the interlocutory application, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition before this Court. 2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff and the defendant are neighbours residing in residential houses located in Gandhipuram in Chilampil Lane in Sreekariyam Muri of the Thirvuananthapuram Taluk. The residential house of the defendant is located immediately to the east of the house of the plaintiff. 3. According to the plaintiff, as per sale deed No.2511 of 1982, he obtained a right by grant to use a pathway having width of 16 links and a length of 37 metres starting from the Chilampil Lane on the east. The plaintiff would say that the defendant has no right to use the same and is causing obstruction for use and enjoyment of the way so obtained by him. Along with the suit it appears that the plaintiff has preferred I.A. No.4307 of 2007 seeking an interim prohibitory injunction. 4. The defendant entered appearance and contested the matter. It is pointed out by him that the way was being used as access to various plots which initially belonged to a common predecessor in interest who had later sold the property to a third person and divided the property WPC No.24226/2010 2 into plots and sold them. Therefore it is pointed out that all the persons who owned the property are entitled to use the said pathway. 5. The courts below found that without Anandavally Amma on the party array, from whom the plaintiff claimed to have obtained the right, it will not be appropriate to grant interim relief to the plaintiff. 6. The matter was carried in appeal in C.M.A No.42 of 2008. Appellate court confirmed the order of trial court. It is the said order that is assailed by the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that courts below were not justified in passing the impugned order. According to the learned counsel the suit was for an injunction and it is not necessary to implead the vendor of the petitioner. 8. It needs to be noticed that the courts below have found that the plaintiff has not chosen to implead Anandavally Amma from whom he purchased the rights over the pathway. Both the courts below found that it is only an easement by grant and there is nothing on record to show that the pathway is given for exclusive use of the plaintiff and it was under this circumstance, the application was dismissed and confirmed in appeal. 9. The courts below cannot be said to be wrong in their finding. As rightly noticed by the courts below, there is nothing on record to show that the pathway is given for the exclusive use of the plaintiff. Therefore WPC No.24226/2010 3 one does not know whether any right to use the way exists in favour of other persons also. Hence, it would only be proper for the plaintiff to implead Anandavally Amma so that the courts could ascertain the exact nature of the right conferred on the plaintiff. The findings of the court below cannot be found fault with. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff expressed apprehension that with these findings on record, it will be futile for him to go for trial. 11. The apprehension expressed by the plaintiff is completely misplaced. It is well settled that findings arrived at the interim stage will not bind the final decision in the suit. It is made clear that the trial court shall decide the suit based on the evidence adduced in the case and untrammelled by any of the findings entered into by the said court or this Court while disposing of the interlocutory application. The trial court may make every endeavour to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.BHAVADASAN (JUDGE) vps WPC No.24226/2010 4 WPC No.24226/2010 5