Point of Law: It is settled law that a person who approaches Court for a relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly and correctly disclose all material and important facts, which have a bearing on adjudication of issues raised in case.

JUDGMENT :

K.BABU, J.

This Regular Second Appeal emanates from the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Additional Munsiff-II, Kozhikode in O.S.No.338/2004. The First Appellate Court, the III Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in A.S.No.24/2009.

2. Material facts relevant for the adjudication of this appeal are briefly narrated below:

2.1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs are residing in the plaint item No.2 property. Item No.1 property lies abutting the public road on the western side. According to the plaintiffs, the 'B' schedule way, which starts from the western public road, runs towards the east and enters item No.2 property, where the residential building of the plaintiffs is situated. The defendants have property on the immediate north of the plaint schedule properties. They are residing in the tharavad house. The plaintiffs also have a joint right over the tharavad house. Access to the property of the defendants is through a lane that originates from the public road and runs along the northern and eastern sides of their property. Plaintiffs can also access their properties from the said lane, which runs along the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. Defendant No.2 constructed a new house in his property to which access can be had from the aforesaid lane. The defendants have no right over the plaint schedule properties. 'B' schedule way that runs through the plaint item No.1 property exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs. Defendants attempted to trespass upon the plaint schedule properties with the intent to obliterate the lie and nature of the way. The attempt of defendants was resisted by the plaintiffs.

2.2. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. They pleaded that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts from the knowledge of the Court. The description of the way, its length, width etc., as stated in the plaint is against the truth. There is a way, having an average width of 10 feet, that starts from the western public road, leading towards the east, and reaches the tharavadu house of the parties, namely 'Kozhikkal Paramba'. The tharavadu house is situated in the middle of the entire property. The tharavadu house is in the common ownership of the members of the Family. All members of the Kozhikkal family have got a right of residence and right of entry in the tharavadu house. The way, which commences from the western public road and reaches the tharavadu house, is a common way enjoyed by all members of the family to access the tharavadu house. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint is not correct. The way in dispute has been in existence from the very inception of the tharavadu house.

3. During the course of proceedings, the plaintiffs amended the plaint incorporating 'B schedule', which is described as a 3 feet wide way having a length of 30 feet which starts from the western public road and reaches the residence of the plaintiffs in the item No.2 property. Amendments were later incorporated in the plaint as per order dated 12.12.2007, nearly after three years of the institution of the suit by which the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants were permitted to access the tharavadu house through the property indicated as 'TJ' lane in Ext.C3(a) sketch. The defendants resisted the amended pleadings raising the contention that they have acquired the right of easement by prescription over the way in dispute.

4. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and DW1, Exhibits.A1 to A10 series marked on the side of the plaintiffs and Ext.B1 marked on the side of the defendants. Exhibits C1 to C4 series were marked as Court Exhibits and Exts.X1 to X2 series were marked as third party Exhibits.

5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs suppressed material facts from the knowledge of the