Dismissed

Varghese Mathai and Anr. v. Sabu and Others

Kerala HC2 Feb 2009RSA/896/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the benefit of the questions of law formulated by the appellants against the lower courts' decree. The court held that the lower courts were justified in finding an easement by prescription and grant, and consequently dismissed the Second Appeal in limine.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal was dismissed in limine as no substantial question of law arose.

Varghese Mathai and Anr. Vs Sabu and Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

RSA.No. 896 of 2006() AS.282/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.357/1996 of MUNSIFF's COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA

¶6

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 AND 3:-

¶7

VARGHESE MATHAI @ PAPPACHAN, RESIDING AT PERUMPILLIL FROM NAREKKATTU, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, DO. KARA.

¶8

ELIYAMMA, DO. DO.

¶9

BY ADV. MR. R.AZAD BABU

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:-

¶11

SABU, S/O.KURUVILA, VAZHAMALAYIL, PIRAVOM KARA, DO. VILLAGE.

¶12

K.V.CHELLAPPAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VAIKATHUMALAYIL PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE.

¶13

AMMINI, DO. DO.

¶14

CHANDRAN, PUNNACHALIL DO. DO.

¶15

INDIRA, DO. DO.

¶16

KURUVILA, VAZHAMALAYIL,

¶17

A.C.GEORGE, ARACKAL, PIRAVOM KARA, DO. VILLAGE

¶18

ADV. MR.THOMAS M.JACOB FOR R1,R2 & R6

¶19

MR.G.RAJAGOPAL FOR R1,R2 & R6

¶20

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

¶22

==========================

¶23

R.S.A. No. 896 of 2006 ========================== Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2009.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. No. 357 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The said suit instituted by 7 plaintiffs who are the owners of the plaint A to E schedule properties, was one for declaration of a prescriptive easement and an easement by way of grant over the plaint F schedule pathway shown as having a length of 700 feet and width of 12 feet.

¶26

The case of the plaintiffs can be summarised as follows:-

¶27

The plaint A to E schedule properties belong to plaintiffs 1 to 7 as per their respective title deeds. The plaint F schedule is a way having an average width of 12 feet and a length of 700 feet. The plaint F schedule way was a thonduvazhi (ally) earlier. In the year 1983, the adjacent owners had surrendered properties for widening the same so as to provide a 4 feet wide road from the Edappillychira-Pathipara road to the Kuttathichira padi on the north. In the year 1983, the 1^st defendant, Thalakunnel Varghese and the 7^th plaintiff had a talk among themselves in the presence of mediators and Ext.A7 agreement dated

¶28

R.S.A. No. 896/2006

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

24.01.1983 was executed for widening the way into a 12 feet road so as to render it convenient for taking Benz lorries. Eversince then, the plaint F schedule road has been in use for taking lorries. The defendants are residing on the western side of the plaint F schedule way. As per Ext.A7 agreement, embankment had to be constructed by the 7^th plaintiff and the 1^st defendant. On the western side of the way, the plaintiff constructed the embankment after demolishing the 'kayyala' in the properties surrendered by the 1^st defendant. The plaintiffs have, thus, got an easement by way of prescription over the old way which was in existence prior to 1983 and an easement by way of grant over the road which was widened into plaint F schedule road for the purpose of beneficial enjoyment of plaint A to E schedule properties lying to the west of the defendants' property. The defendants obstructed the plaintiffs from taking lorry along the plaint F schedule way. Hence the suit.

¶31

The suit was resisted by the appellants and others contending inter alia as follows:-

¶32

The plaintiffs have no cause of action. There was no way through the property of the 1^st defendant. His property lies slopping from east to west. He had, therefore, constructed an 'edakayyala' to

¶33

R.S.A. No. 896/2006 : 3 :

¶34

prevent soil erosion. For the purpose of his personal use, he had constructed a private way to the top most terrace from the southern panchayat road. The said private way exclusively belongs to the defendants. The plaintiffs have no right over the same. It is true that on 24.01.1983, Ext.A7 agreement was executed. But, the same was executed without consulting the real owners of the property namely his mother and the sister who were owning 2.14 acres and 35 cents respectively. Hence, the said agreement will not bind them. At the time of executing the said agreement, the 1^st defendant did not have a right over the western property. No road was constructed pursuant to the said agreement which has not come into force. The plaintiffs had demolished the northern 'kayyala' of the 1^st defendant's property and had cut open a road before the institution of the suit. They have no sort of easement right over the plaint F schedule property. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Both the courts below have held that there was a narrow pathway along the plaint F schedule road in existence and that the plaintiffs had perfected a right of easement by prescription over the said pathway and that as per Ext.A7 agreement dated 24.01.1983 executed between the 1^st defendant as the first party and one

¶36

R.S.A. No. 896/2006

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

Thalakunnel Varghese and the 7^th plaintiff as second party, the existing pathway was widened into a 12 feet road over which the plaintiffs have got a right of grant. The suit was accordingly decreed as prayed for. Hence this Second Appeal.

¶39

The following are the questions of law formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal:-

¶40

A. Whether the courts below are justified in holding that Exhibit A7 agreement is for widening the existing pathway and not for constructing a new pathway and thereby granting a decree of easement by grant?

¶41

B. Was not there an inherent contradiction in the finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to easement by prescription as well as by grant?

¶42

C. Were the courts below justified in applying the principle of feeding the grant by estoppel in the case at hand?

¶43

D. Are the trial court and the first appellate court went wrong in granting easement right over a pathway of 12 ft width whereas the Commissioner's report mentions about a pathway having varying width from 7 ft to 20 ft?

¶44

E. Whether the first appellate court is justified in granting easementary right of a pathway having a width of 12 ft when evidence in the case reveal that a 45 year old mango tree is protruding into the pathway leaving a width of only 7.5 ft at that point?

¶45

I heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. He

¶46

reiterated before me the contentions of the appellants. He made the following submissions before me:-

¶47

R.S.A. No. 896/2006

¶48

: 5 :

¶49

Ext.A7 agreement was executed in the year 1983 at a time when the 1^st defendant had not acquired the properties situated to the west of the southern segment of plaint F schedule road. He obtained title over the said property only in the year 1995. Hence, even assuming that Ext.A7 agreement was executed for the formation of a road, it was for the cutting open a new road. Ext.A7 does not mention the existence of any pathway which was sought to be widened. The courts below erred in holding that as per Ext.A7 an existing narrow pathway was sought to be widened into a road.

¶50

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. It is true that Ext.A7 agreement starts by saying that for the purpose of cutting open a road from Edappillychira-Pathipara road towards Kuttathichira padi on the north and that the work was completed from the gates of Thalakunnel Varghese and the 7^th plaintiff up to the southern boundary of the property of Mannathukuzhi Kunju. But, the subsequent recitals in Ext.A7 will go to show that the agreement was executed for widening an existing pathway into a road up to the panchayat road namely the Edappillychira-Pathipara road on the south. The following recital in Ext.A7 makes it beyond any doubt that an existing pathway was being sought to be widened:-

R.S.A. No. 896/2006

: 6 :

“

Both the courts had, after a careful evaluation of the documentary and oral evidence in the case including the testimony of PW3, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have prescribed a right of way over the existing pathway and that thereafter Ext.A7 agreement was executed evidencing the conferment of an easement by way of grant with regard to the 12 feet wide plaint F schedule road. The very mention of an iruvakayyala (two parallel stone walls usually on either side of an ally) suggests the existence of a narrow pathway. It was after adverting to all these aspects of the case that the courts below came to the aforesaid finding. The said finding is a pure finding of fact recorded on the basis of the evidence in the case. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The questions of law formulated

¶55

R.S.A. No. 896/2006

¶56

: 7 :

¶57

in the memorandum of Second Appeal also do not arise for consideration in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶58

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2009.

¶59

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶60

Varghese Mathai and Anr. v. Sabu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese Mathai and Anr. v. Sabu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwanatha Alva Vs Karunakaran

P.Saraswathy & Others Vs K.Saraswathy & Others

K.M.Cleetus Vs Smt.Alphonsa and Others

Elappan Vs Francis Muthu

V.M.Muraleedharan Vs Velayudhan Nadar Ratna Swamy Nadar

Vilasini Vs Kalyani