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 w