This regular second appeal challenged the First Appellate Court's judgment allowing tenants to prevent vehicle parking on a road margin. The High Court of Kerala held that the right of access to a public road cannot be curtailed by obstruction, regardless of local authority permission, and dismissed the appeal without costs.
Second appeal dismissed; no costs awarded.
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.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941
RSA.No. 373 of 2005 (C)
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2004 IN AS No.58/2002 of I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2001 IN OS No. 268/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKKANCHERRY
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.5/DEFENDANT No.5:
RAMANKUTTY, S/o AMMATHU LAKSHMY AMMA, ENKAKKAD VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4 :
1 INASU, OWNER OF PUTHUKKARA HARDWARES, A FIRM OTTUPPARA, S/o PUTHUKKARA PORINCHUNNY, RESIDING AT OTTUPPARA DESOM, KUMARANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.
2 SIMON, OWNER OF PRAKASH ELECTRICAL, A FIRM, S/o MURINGATHARI THOMAS, RESIDING AT OTTUPARA DESOM, KUMARANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.S.A.No.373 of 2005
2
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court, the fifth defendant came up with this appeal. The suit was filed by the first and second plaintiffs, the lessees under two shop rooms situated in 'A' schedule property. 'B' schedule is the road margin.
Their prayer was not to park any vehicle by obstructing the easy passage to shop rooms and the road frontage available to the shop rooms. Though the Trial Court dismissed the suit, it was reversed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the fifth defendant, who is the representative of taxi drivers in the area, came up with this appeal.
margin having a width of seven feet. The Commissioner who visited the property has also located the road margin scheduled in the plaint as 'B' schedule. The prayer in the suit is not to park any vehicle on the road margin lying in
front of the shop rooms facing towards the road. Admittedly, there is no intervening property between the road and its road margin from that of 'A' schedule property
and the shop rooms situated therein. It is well settled that the right of access to public road through each and
R.S.A.No.373 of 2005
3
every inch of land when the registered holding situated adjoining to the public road cannot be curtailed either by any person or by any local authority. The contention raised by the defendant that the local authority has permitted to park the vehicle in front of the abovesaid shop rooms is without any authority. It is really an invasion upon the right of the property owners of plaint 'A' schedule and the persons who are occupying the shop rooms under any lease arrangement or otherwise. Nobody can obstruct the easy passage to the public road from their registered holding lying adjoining to the public way. The parking of vehicle, though for a short time, really amounts to obstruction. The First Appellate Court has applied the legal position in its correct perspective. No substantial question of law, much less any question of law, was brought to the notice of this Court. Hence, the second appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
DMR/-
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the right of access to a public road through land adjoining to it can be curtailed by parking vehicles on the road margin.
Whether the First Appellate Court correctly applied the settled legal position regarding the obstruction of public road access.
Ramankutty
Inasu
Simon
Secretary, Swanthanthra Taxi Drivers Union
Mohan
Radhakrishnan
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
