IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 521 of 2010(O) ------------------------ CMA.14/2009 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD IA 3607/2009 IN OS.470/2009 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. VINOD KUMAR, S/O. CHARLES, EDEN HOUSE, MUKKOLAYKKAL, THEKKUMKARA MURI, KARIPPOORU VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SALEELA MANI, W/O. VINOD KUMAR, RESIDING AT DO-SO 3. JNANADAS, S/O. THOMSON, VIAJAYAMANGALAM HOUSE, DO-DO- BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SURENDRAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, SALOM HOUSE, MUKKOLAYIL, THEKKUMKARA MURI, KARIPPOORU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. KUTTAPPAN PILLAI KRISHNAVILASOM VEEDU, MUKKOLAYKKAL, DO-DO-. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.521 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.470 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Nedumangad and appellants in C.M.A.No.14 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Nedumangad are the petitioners before me. Respondents filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain petitioners from causing obstruction to their use of plaint C schedule, pathway. Going by their pleadings it would appear that they have a right of easement by way of grant over the said pathway. They claimed that item No.1 of plaint A schedule belongs to respondent No.1 as per sale deed No.1892 of 2006 while item No.2 of plaint A schedule belonged to respondent No.2 as per document No.3006 of 2002. It is their further case that plaint B schedule belonged to petitioner No.3 and he settled it in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Originally plaint A and B schedule items belonged to the father of petitioner No.3 as legal heir of Jnanam S/o.Antony. They claimed right of easement by way of grant and alleged that petitioners are obstructing their user of plaint C schedule. Petitioners contended that the way referred to in the documents of title relied on by the respondents is not plaint C schedule and that plaint C schedule is their private way. Learned Munsiff found from Exts.C1 and C1(a), report and sketch existence of plaint C schedule and was prima facie satisfied from Exts.A2, A6 and A7 marked in the trial court that respondents are entitled to a right of way over plaint C schedule and accordingly the application for temporary injunction was allowed. Petitioners OP(C) No.521/2010 2 took up the matter in appeal. Learned Sub Judge while considering C.M.A.No.14 of 2009 has confirmed that finding. Hence this petition. Learned counsel contends that a perusal of documents relied on by either side would show right of way claimed by respondents by way of grant is not in respect of plaint C schedule. It is also contended by learned counsel that plaint C schedule is the private way of petitioners. 2. The question whether identity of way disputed by petitioners is correct or not is to be decided after trial. Existence of the way is proved by Exts.C1 and C1(a). In the light of Exts.C1 and C1(a) and the materials on record courts below were prima facie satisfied that respondents have a right of access through plaint C schedule by way of grant. That finding cannot be said to be perverse or beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the courts below so that this Court is required to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. Other questions raised by the parties are to be decided after trial. I do not find reason to interfere. Trial court shall dispose of the suit untrammelled by the findings or observations contained in the impugned order/judgment or in this judgment. Petition is dismissed with the above observation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks