Important Points:
" There should be a total deprivation of enjoyment of property by the servient owner due to total destruction of subject matter by the imposition of easement right. The learned counsel relied on the decision drawn in Sreedharan v. Madanan 2003 (1) KLT 320 in support of his argument-There is no total destruction of the subject or deprivation of right of owner due to imposement of easement, there cannot be any application of Section 17 of the Act.
" The plaintiff was working and residing at some other place during the relevant time- No satisfactory evidence was adduced to show user `as of right` for the required period of twenty years except the interested self serving oral evidence of PW1. On the other hand, there were few steps installed at the place of entrance to the property of plaintiff from the B schedule way. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent pressed for a remand of the matter to the Trial Court.

P. Somarajan, J.

1. Against the decree and judgment of both the Trial Court (Munsiff's Court, Thalassery) in O.S.No.300/2006, dated 09/10/2009, and First Appellate Court (Subordinate Judge's Court, Kannur) in A.S.No. 113/2012 dated 24/09/2012, the defendant came up with this appeal.

2. The suit is one for perpetual injunction against causing obstruction to the user of B schedule way by the plaintiff. A schedule is the registered holding of plaintiff. Plaintiff claims prescriptive right of easement of way over B schedule. The defendant contested the suit disputing and denying the claim.

3. The question essentially came up for consideration in this appeal is what actually amounts to the expression 'Interruption' as envisaged under Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882.

4. Plaint 'A' schedule property along with other properties subjected to a partition in the year 1990, under Ext.A1 partition karar wherein item No.7 was allotted to the share of plaintiff. Ext.A6 is the previous document of title.

5. According to the defendant, plaint 'B' schedule is lying on a higher level of 6 feet. During 2004 the plaintiff had preferred a complaint alleging obstruction to the usage of way, but the suit was filed only on 6/11/2006, after the lapse of more than 2 years. The suit was not brought into existence within a period of 2 years from the date of obstruction alleged and admitted by the plaintiff. The right claimed by plaintiff is also disputed challenging the user of way as of right as an easement for the required period of 20 years ending within 2 years. The oral evidence tendered by PW2 was rejected by both the Trial court and the First Appellate Court, finding that the same is not reliable. It is based on the oral evidence tendered by PW1, the plaintiff, and the report of the Commissioner, a decree was granted by both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction, finding that the plaintiff had acquired prescriptive right of easement of way over plaint B schedule property. Further, the admission made by the plaintiff regarding the obstruction while in the box and in Ext.A5 proceedings had been overlooked by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The plaintiff had admitted as PW1 the obstruction created in the user of way by digging soil across the way so as to construct an obstructing wall by the defendant. Ext.A5 proceedings were initiated based on the above said allegation on a complaint submitted by the plaintiff.

6. It was submitted that the suit was not filed within two years from the date of obstruction and hence no claim can be allowed under Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act,1882 and took support from the decisions in Nachiparayan v. Narayana Goundan and another AIR 1920 Madras 541 and Badariya Madrassa Committee v. Antony Robert 2006 (2) KLT 636 :: 2006 (2) KLJ 181. It was submitted that when there is interference to the user of the way, the suit must be filed within two years from the date of such obstruction or interference. Relying on the head note prepared by the publisher in Nachiparayan's case (supra), it was submitted that a suit must be brought into existence within two years from the date of interference. In Nachiparayan's case (supra), in the head note prepared by the publisher, instead of the expression 'interruption' mistakenly the word 'interference' was included, may be due to the mistake on the part of the editor who published the journal. Going by the decision, it is seen that no where it is stated or included the word 'interference'. The expression used is 'interruption' and not 'interference'. 'There is lot of difference between these two expressions 'interference' and 'interruption'. In order to resolve the issue, it is necessary to go into the relevant provision-Section 15 of Indian Easement Act 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which is extracted below for reference:

“Sec.15. Acquisition by prescription.- Where the access and