Where an easement by grant is created, can its user be restricted by imposing conditions, together with the grant?

2. Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Principal Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad in O.S. No. 225/2001 followed by those of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nedumangad in A.S.No.77/2006, the plaintiff in the suit has come up with this second appeal.

3. The suit is one for declaration of title and possession of the plaintiff over plaint A schedule property, which takes in the plaint C schedule pathway also. Other consequential relief of perpetual injunction has also been sought for. According to the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant has made attempts to encroach into the portions of plaint A schedule property and to put up constructions in plaint C schedule pathway, and hence the suit.

4. The plaint B schedule property belongs to the 2nd defendant. Originally, plaint A, B and C schedule properties were lying as a compact plot having a total extent of 34 cents. The plaintiff purchased 25 cents of property, which is the plaint A schedule property. Even prior to that, the vendors of the 2nd defendant in respect of the plaint B schedule property purchased the plaint B schedule pathway having an extent of 9 cents through Exts.A1 and A2. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant purchased the said property through Ext.A5. In Ext.A2 an express grant of plaint C schedule pathway was made. Plaint C schedule pathway was granted as per the conditions incorporated in Ext.A2 by way of an easement by grant, for enabling access to plaint B schedule property from the northern road.

5. Both the courts below have concurrently taken the view that the plaintiff has no title over plaint C schedule pathway and therefore, the suit was partly decreed by granting a decree for the declaration of the title and possession of the plaintiff over plaint A schedule property, excluding plaint C schedule item.

6. This Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Did the courts below act contrary to law in erroneously interpreting the recitals in Exts.A2 and A5 documents to the effect that with respect to 'C' schedule pathway therein is absolute transfer of title in favour of the vendees therein, and the vendor did not retain any interest over the pathway after the sale?

(ii) Did the courts below err in dismissing the suit in part by misconstruing and misinterpreting the recitals in Ext.A2 deed with respect to the extent of right conferred to the vendee as well as the reservations made therein in favour of the vendor with respect to the portion used as pathway?"

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the courts below have failed to construe the conditions incorporated in Ext.A2 with regard to the plaint C schedule item, legally and properly. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to get his title declared over plaint A schedule item as a whole, which takes in plaint C schedule item also. Further, it has been argued that the reservations and conditions incorporated in Ext.A2 were also not properly taken note of by both the courts below.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the 2nd defendant has absolute right over plaint C schedule item and the plaintiff cannot interfere with the right of user of the 2nd defendant over plaint C schedule item.

10. On hearing either side, it has clearly come out that the matter can be answered by interpreting the conditions in Ext.A2 and also by properly construing the said document. The 2nd defendant and her husband first defendant, are no doubt, bound by the terms and conditions contained in Ext.A2. When the vendors of the 2nd defendant as well as the plaintiff have derived title over the properties from common ancestor, no doubt the plaintiff is also bound by the terms and conditions contain