IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 RSA.No. 978 of 2007(G) -------------------------------------- AS.44/2001 of SUB COURT, PALA OS.99/1995 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANT AND R5/ADDL. PLNTS 6 & 4: 1. NEGHUL THOMSON, S/O. THOMAS, CHAYANAKUNNEL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MONAMMA, AGED 36, W/O. JOBOUY, CC NO.33/3402 A, THAIKKAV, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682 028. 2. JABOUY THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, CHAYANAKUNNEL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (PERMANENT ADDRESS) BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/R1-4 & 6/DEFTS & ADDL.PLANTS 2,3&5: 1. GEORGE, S/O. JOSEPH, CHAYANAKUNNEL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. MARY, W/O. GEORGE, DO. DO. 3. ANNAMMA, W/O. THOMAS, DO. DO. 4. GENEEV THOMSON, S/O. THOMAS, DO. DO. 5. SHIRLY ROY KODUVATHU, D/O. THOMAS, DO. DO. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- R.S.A.No.978 of 2007 -------------------------- JUDGMENT The sixth and fourth additional plaintiffs in O.S.No.99/95 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Pala are the appellants in this Regular Second Appeal. The prayer in the suit was for declaration of their right to use plaint schedule Item No.5 in O.S.No.122/95 as a road for their ingress and egress to Pala-Kurichithanam Road and that has been decreed by the trial court subject to execution of a release deed in favour of the first respondent/ first defendant in respect of their rights over 2¼ metres wide pathway mentioned in Partition Deed No. 1426/69 of SRO, Ramapuram within a period of three months from the date of decree. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction to the user and peaceful enjoyment of plaint schedule Item No.5 road by the plaintiffs and that also has been decreed by the RSA 978/07 2 trial court. The first appellate court also concurred with that part of the decree. Hence this Regular Second Appeal by the sixth and fourth additional plaintiffs in that suit against the defendants/respondents 1 and 2, impleading additional plaintiffs 2, 3 and 5 as respondents 3 to 5. 2. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants and respondents 3 to 5 are prepared to execute release deed in compliance with the decree relinquishing their rights over the pathway of 2¼ metre width mentioned in Partition Deed No.1426/1969 of SRO, Ramapuram and that he has no other relief to be prayed for in this Regular Second Appeal. The result is that this Regular Second Appeal is devoid of merit and deserves only to be dismissed. This Regular Second Appeal is, hence, dismissed. 17th March, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv