JUDGMENT :

T.R. RAVI, J.

1. The 1st petitioner is a Private Limited Company represented by its Managing Director Sri Joseph Mathew and petitioners 2 to 5 are the brothers of Sri Joseph Mathew. Sri Mathew and Sri Kurian are their father and paternal grandfather, respectively. Late Sri Kurian had executed a settlement deed registered as document No. 1439/1955 of the SRO, Meenachil, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. As per Ext.P3, properties shown as Schedules B, C and D have been settled in favour of the 3 sons of Kurian, and Schedule A was retained by the said Kurian. Later, Kurian executed a Will which is registered as document No. 64/1977 with SRO, Meenachil, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4, whereby the properties shown under Schedule B were allotted to Sri Mathew. By virtue of Exts.P3 and P4 Sri Mathew became the owner of 140.25 cents of land. Petitioners have produced as Ext.P1 series, the tax receipts issued regarding the properties. The properties are situated in an area called Kottaramattom coming under the Pala Municipality which is stated to be a commercially important place. To put the property for better commercial use, the petitioners decided to construct a commercial building. Initially, a permit was obtained in the year 2009, and construction was completed by July, 2010. Additional constructions were made based on permission obtained in March, 2010 which were also completed according to the petitioners by November 2011. In 2015, the 1st petitioner and petitioners 2 and 3 approached the Municipality with a revised building plan to have a better utility for the building which is already there in existence with the name “Puthettu Arcade.” Even though the application was submitted in 2015, the same was approved only on 24.10.2017 as can be seen from Ext.P2 revised building permit. The construction, according to the petitioners, is now complete and the lower floors are already occupied, and, on the upper floor the proposal is to put up a multiplex theatre with three screens, the construction of which is also nearing completion. According to the petitioners even though necessary documents were submitted for issuance of the completion certificate and occupancy certificate, the same was not granted by the Municipality for frivolous reasons.

2. In Ext.P3 settlement deed there is a mention of a road which the grandfather of the petitioners had decided to lay as access to the properties shown in A to D Schedules from the Lalam-Kozha road (presently the Poonjar-Ettumanoor State Highway) on the south and leading towards north approximately through the middle portion of the entire property, in such a way that the B and D Schedule properties will be on the west and A and C Schedule properties will be on the east of the road. The road was to have a width of 15 links and covers an extent of 13.5 cents, ending on the northern end of the property, providing access to the ancestral house of the petitioners, where the 4th petitioner resides. Ext.P3 specifically says that the area covered by the road portion is also to be included in the Schedules allotted to each beneficiary and that the respective shareholders are to mutate such portions as part of their properties. The petitioners submit that the properties that devolved on Sri Mathew as C Schedule in Ext.P3 and B Schedule in Ext.P4 includes one-half of the extent of the road having a width of 15 links. It is submitted that the road is still in existence though the width varies at different points and lies on the western portion of the properties owned by the petitioners wherein the buildings have been constructed on the strength of Ext.P2. Respondents 9 and 10 are alienees from one of the brothers of Sri Mathew, who had been allotted D Schedule property in Ext.P3, lying on the north end. There were disputes between respondents 9 and 10 and Sri Mathew and his sons (petitioners herein) regarding the road shown in Ext.P3. The issue culminated in the filing of O.S. No. 165/1995