appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from taking any vehicle through A schedule property. Additional Munsiff, Kasaragod dismissed the suit holding that the pathway in question is being used by the people of the locality and so the plaintiff is not entitled to the injuction sought in the suit. This finding has been confirmed by the Sub Judge, Kasaragod in A.S.3 of 1986.

2. Contention of the plaintiff is that there existed previously only a foot path through his property, that it belonged to him exclusively, that he widened the same and that defendants have no right to take any vehicle through it. The Courts below held that there existed a public pathway with two feet width through A schedule property. Both the Courts also repelled the plaintiff's contention that it was he who widened the road. The Sub Judge held that even if pathway was widened at the instance of the plaintiff, he cannot claim exclusive possession over the widened portion.

3. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below that there existed a pathway having width of two feet through plaint A schedule and that it was widened by the people of the locality, the