IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 RSA.No. 666 of 2008 ------------------------ (A.S. No 50/2002 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT,CHERTHALA) (O.S. No 709/1998 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA) APPELLANTS:APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPINATHA PILLAI S/o NARAYANA PILLAI, VELIPARAMBU VEETTIL AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 2. LALITHAMMA W/o GOPINATHA PILLAI VELIPARAMBU VEETTIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 3 TO 7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAN PILLAI S/o KOCHUKUTTAN PILLAI RAJEEVAM VEETTIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE,CHERTHALA 2. PADMANABHA PILLAI NATARAJA PILLAI S/o PADMANABHA PILLAI KIZHAKKE NADUVILE VEETTIL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE CHERTHALA 3. KAMALAMMA @ MANIAMMA, KIZHAKKE NADUVILE VEETTIL AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 4. LILLY D/o PAILI, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE FROM ASARIPARAMBIL AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA 5. REYNOLD S/o LILLY, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE FROM ASARIPARAMBIL AROOR MURI AROOR VILLAGE CHERTHALA 6. PRAKASAN PILLAI S/o KUMARA PILLAI, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------- R.S.A. No 666 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th July 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the appellants. There is absolutely no merit in any of the contentions advanced before me except that there is some discrepancy between the pathway made mention of in the plaint and the pathway specified in the decreetal portion of this judgment. 2. Counsel who has entered appearance for the caveator- the first respondent, who is the sole plaintiff in the suit, submits that in the decree there is omission in not making mention of the pathway of a width of 3 feet that runs from the north-eastern corner towards south west and that also may be provided in the decree as that is the portion described as excluded in the plaint while describing item No.2. 3. In the result, in modification of the decree of the court below it is directed that the pathway having a width of 3 feet which runs from the north west corner towards west to a length of four metres and the pathway of 3 feet width that runs from the westernmost portion to the easternmost portion along the northern boundary shall extend at the same width to a length of two metres towards southwest from the north eastern corner of item No.2 property. After leaving the above portion as pathway the plaintiff can construct boundary wall for item No.2 property. With the above modification in the decree this R.S.A is disposed of. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 24/07/2008 en [true copy] In paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 24/07/2008 in R.S.A No. 666/2008 in the fifth line, the word “south west” is corrected as “south” deleting the word “west”. In paragraph 3 of the judgment in line 3, in the words “towards west to a length of four meters”, the word “west” is corrected as “south” and in paragraph 3 in line7, the words “towards southwest from the north eastern corner of item No. 2 property” are corrected and substituted as “towards south from the north eastern corner of item No. 2 property along its eastern boundary”. Judgment corrected as per order dated 21/05/2009 in I.A no.2054/2008 in R.S.A No.666/2008 Registrar(Judicial)