IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6199 of 2010(O) ------------------------- CMA.20/2009 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. OS.602/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- REYNOLD, S/O.PATHROSE, AGED 54, PANACKAL, KANJIRAMCHIRA WARD, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, MR.M.D.SASIKUMARAN, MR.GEORGE MATHEW, MR.DIPU JAMES. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MATHA BHAVAN, VAZHICHERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. DELSAMMA, W/O.RAJU, AGED 47, MATHA BHAVAN, VAZHICHERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. SUSAN JOHN, W/O.DR.GEORGE K.GEORGE, MUTTEPADATHU HOUSE, NEAR Y.M.C.A., KOCHI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges Exts.P6 order passed by the trial court and Ext.P7 judgment passed by the first appellate court. 2. The petitioner instituted O.S. No.602 of 2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha seeking a declaration of his right of easement by prescription over the plaint item No.2 pathway and for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from obstructing his use of plaint item No.2 pathway. Along with the suit, it appears that the plaintiff had filed I.A. No.3260 of 2008 seeking an interim injunction. The court below on the basis of the commissioner's report found that plaint item No.2 pathway was not properly identified by the Commissioner and W.P.(C) No. 6199/2010 2 declined to grant the interim relief to the petitioner. The lower appellate court concurred with the finding of the trial court. 3. It is seen that there is a concurrent finding against the petitioner regarding item No.2 path way. Both the courts below have noticed that there is a convenient way available to the plaintiff for ingress and egress to plaint item No.1 property. A perusal of the case records, according to both the courts below, is sufficient to show that the very existence of the way claimed is in doubt. The said view is not shown to be wrong. It is not as if the petitioner has no other way to the outside world. The order of the court below shows that the petitioner has direct access to a very convenient way. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below declined to grant the interim relief to the petitioner. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the courts below. However, it is made clear that the suit shall be disposed of without considering any of the observations made by the W.P.(C) No. 6199/2010 3 trial court as well as the appellate court in I.A. No.3260 of 2008 in O.S. No.602 of 2008. Hence, the writ petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.