IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 668 of 2004()
1. MOHAMMED SALI, S/O. MYTHOONKUNJU,
... Petitioner
2. SALIM S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
3. SMT.SHYLA, W/O. SAILM, ANSHAD MANZIL,
Vs
1. CHANRAPRABHA W/O. DILEEPKUMAR,
... Respondent
2. PRABHULLACHANDRAN @ CHANDRAN,
3. KUNJU PONNAMMA, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,
4. KUNJI VILASINI, DO. DO.
5. KUNJI RETNAMMA, DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :16/07/2008
O R D E R
K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------------
C.R.P. No 668 of 2004
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th July 2008
O R D ER
Counsel for the appellant is advocate Sri G.S. Raghunath and
he is absent and advocate Sri Shammiraj, junior attached to the
office submits that advocate Sri G.S.Raghunath is engaged in some
other court. He further submits that he is not authorised to argue
this revision. There are other senior juniors to advocate Sri G.S.
Raghunath whose names find place in the docket. They are also
absent. In the result, I dismiss this Civil Revision Petition for default.
Sd/-
K.P. BALACHANDRAN
Judge
16/07/208
en
[true copy]
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+RSA.No. 254 of 2008()
#1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 49
... Petitioner
2. JAYASREE RADHAKRISHNAN W/O RADHAKRISHNAN
Vs
$1. CHINNAMMA, D/O RAHELAMMA AGED 59,
... Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA
^ For Respondent :SRI. K.SHAJ
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
% Dated :18/07/2008
: O R D E R
K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J.
———————————————————
R.S.A. No 254 of 2008
———————————————————
Dated this the 18th July 2008
JUDGMENT
The first defendant and additional third defendant who are
husband and wife assailed the concurrent decree passed by the
courts below in O.S.No 568 of 1996 of the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor.
The suit was filed by the respondent for a decree declaring her right of
easement by prescription over the B schedule pathway which runs
through the defendant’s property connecting the plaint schedule
property belonging to her with the public road on the north running
through the defendant’s property which lies in between. The
appellants-defendants disputed the existence of pathway alleged by
the plaintiff. They admit that plaint A schedule property is bounded
on the eastern and northern sides by the property belonging to them
and also that there is a panchayat road running through the northern
side of the property of the defendants. Though the defendant has
contended in the written statement filed before amendment of the
plaint that there never did exist a pathway as described as B schedule
for passage of the plaintiff and that plaintiff is having access to her
RSA 254/08 2
property through other means. It is not specified as to which is that
pathway especially when they admit in the written statement that their
property is both on the eastern and northern sides of plaint A
schedule property and that the panchayat road runs along the
northern side of their property. Further in the additional written
statement filed on 03.11.2000 the case of the defendants is that the
first defendant has not enclosed the pathway that was being used by
the plaintiff and that through the said pathway the plaintiff is having
her passage uninterruptedly. According to counsel for the
appellants, the contention that they have not enclosed the pathway
and that plaintiff is having passage to the plaint schedule property
through the said pathway uninterruptedly is mentioned in the written
statement with reference to the pathway through which the
defendants contend that the plaintiff is having access to the
scheduled property. It is worthy to note that plaintiff has no case
that the defendant is enclosing any other pathway used by her other
than B schedule pathway and therefore what could have been
referred to in the written statement is only the B schedule pathway
and not any other pathway. This is all the more so because plaintiff
is not stated to have access from the schedule property to any other
RSA 254/08 3
road by any other means, either towards west or towards south
through anybody else’s property or that there exists any other road
either on the western side or on the southern side of plaint A
schedule property. It was in the above circumstance that the trial
court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and that
was concurred with by the first appellate court while dismissing the
appeal filed by the present appellants. Thus there is no merit in this
R.S.A and there is no question of law and much less any substantial
question of law arising for consideration by this court in this Second
Appeal.
In the result, I dismiss this R.S.A in limine refusing admission.
Sd/-
K.P. BALACHANDRAN
Judge
18/07/2008
en
[true copy]