IMPORTANT POINTS
The Railway Administration decided to construct a compound wall to abate the menace caused by the customers of the plaintiffs to the passengers/ railway users. The defendants do not have a case that the Railway Administration was intending to carry out any construction and maintenance works as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act-The lower Appellate Court went wrong in relying on Section 11 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

The non-suited plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the court of the first instance and the lower Appellate Court, are the appellants.

2. The plaintiffs 1 to 5, 8 and 9 in O.S.No.7/2003 of the Court of the Munsiff, Aluva, are the appellants. The defendants in the suit – the Southern Railway Administration and its Officers – are the respondents in the appeal. The parties and facts are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status and as averred before the Court of the Munsiff (Trial Court).

3. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they, their men, agents and customers have acquired the right of way by prescription for user of plaint 'A' schedule property, for access by persons and vehicles to plaint-'B to -E' schedule properties and the buildings therein. They also sought for other consequential reliefs.

4. The short relevant facts in the plaint are as follows:

4.1 Plaint-'A' schedule property is the north eastern part of the larger vacant area of land having a length of 52 meters from the north to the south and a width of 8 meters from the east to the west, lying on the eastern side of the Aluva Railway Station main platform. 'A' schedule property is linked to the Railway Station road and the St.Antony's Monastery road which are vested and maintained by the Aluva Municipality for over 50 years. 'A' schedule property is the access of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest, their agents, employees and customers, to enter their buildings. The buildings on the eastern side of the 'A' schedule property are in existence for the last 50-75 years. The buildings have their main entrance and access on their western side facing the 'A' schedule property. The buildings and properties are specifically described in 'B to E' schedule properties. The plaintiffs and their predecessor have acquired and perfected the right of way/access over the 'A' schedule property by easement by prescription.

4.2 The 'A' schedule property is the serviant tenement, over which the right of way to plaint-'B to E' schedule properties was acquired, which is the dominant tenement. The defendants have no right to close or obstruct 'A' schedule property in any manner. The 1st plaintiff is the owner of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. In 'B' schedule property, a four storied building is constructed, wherein, a restaurant/bar and lodge are functioning. The building was constructed in 1974, after demolishing the old building. The main entrance to the building faces 'A' schedule property, which is the main access used to enter the building. The 'C' schedule building has been in existence for over 50 years. Its main entrance also faces 'A' schedule property, which is the main access to enter the building. In 'D' schedule

property, the 1st plaintiff and his brother are conducting another restaurant. The building is in existence for more than 75 years, and the main entrance is facing 'A' schedule property, which is the main access to enter the building. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the tenants in occupation of various rooms in the building in 'E' schedule property. The main entrance to the rooms also face 'A' schedule property, which is the main access to enter the building. The additional 8th plaintiff is the owner of 'D' schedule property. The buildings in 'D &E' schedule properties are also more than 75 years old. The plaintiffs have acquired and perfected the right of way over 'A' schedule property by easement by prescription.

4.3. The defendants have no right to close or obstruct 'A' schedule property in any manner. Plaint-'A' schedule property is owned by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the General Manager of the 1st defendant.

4.4. On 3.1.2003, certain men under the 4th defendant went to the plaint-'A' schedule property and started digging a trench of about 1.5 feet width along the eastern boundary of 'A' schedule property. The plaintiffs learnt that the defendants were intending to construct