This second regular appeal challenged the decree in a suit concerning the plaintiff's right to use a pathway over the defendants' land. The High Court found no materials to warrant interference with the concurrent lower court findings and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Liberty granted to attempt settlement. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932
RSA.No. 702 of 2007()
-------------------------------AS.3/2002 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA OS.181/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/5TH DEFENDANT IN OS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------KUNJUNJU KUTTY, VARIPPALIL HOUSE, PALIAKKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS.1 TO 6 IN AS. /PLAINTIFF & DEFEMTAMTS 1 TO 4 ------------------------ AND ADDL.6TH DEFENDANT IN OS.
1. KUNJANNA MARIYAMMA, NADUVILA PARAMBIL HOUSE, PALIYAKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE.
2. PANKAJASHIAMMA, VALLIYA MARATTU MUNJANATTU VADAKKEKALATHIL HOUSE, THUKALASSERY MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE.
3. PARUKUTTYAMMA, VALLIYA MARATTU MANJANATTU VADAKKEKALATHIL HOUSE, THUKALASSERY MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE.
4. SANTHAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, -DO- -DO-.
5. THANKAMMA, AGED 54 YEARS, VALLIYA MARATTU MUNJANATTU VADAKKEKALATHIL HOUSE, THUKALASSERY MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE.
6. PONNAMMA, W/O. P.C. CHERIYAN, AGED 44 YEARS, PUTHUPARAMPIL, PALIACKARA, THIRUVALLA.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE,
SRI.P.HARIDAS. R6 BY SRI.INNOCENT FRANCIS PAPPALLI
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEAR ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
R.S.A No. 702 of 2007
Dated this the 14th July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against him, the 5th defendant in O.S 181/96 has come up in appeal. The facts and parties hereinafter referred to as are available before the trial court.
R.S.A No. 702 of 2007
2
consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A3 marked from the side of the plaintiff. Defendants had examined DW1 and DW2 and had Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. Exts.C1 and C1 (a) are the commission report and plan.
R.S.A No. 702 of 2007
3
R.S.A No. 702 of 2007
4
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
ma
R.S.A No. 702 of 2007
5
R.S.A No. 702 of 2007
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding the plaintiff's right to use an existing pathway required interference.
Whether the respondent defendant was justified in refusing to allow the plaintiff to use a pathway through the middle of his property despite the stipulation in the sale deed.
Kunjunju Kutty
Kunjanamma Maryamma
Pankajashaamma
Parukuttyamma
Santhamma
Thankamma
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
