IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an oral family arrangement or settlement, there should be sufficient pleadings and convincing evidence. The court emphasized the necessity of registration for the exchange of properties as per Section 118 and Section 54 of the T.P. Act.

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('C.P.C.' hereinafter) challenging the decree and judgment in A.S.No.5 of 2019, dated 21.12.2019 on the files of the Court of the II Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam arose from decree and judgment in O.S.No.353 of 2012 dated 12.10.2017 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kochi. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the above suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the relevant materials and the verdicts under challenge.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as “plaintiff” and “defendant” with reference to their status before the trial court.

4. In this matter, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession as well as injunction. According to the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, by name George Areeparambil owned 10 cents of land on the strength of a Sale Deed No.1181/1984 of S.R.O, Kochi. Out of the same, 3 cents forming its eastern portion was settled in favour of the plaintiff as per the Settlement Deed No.1683/1995 of S.R.O, Kochi, and the same is plaint A schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and his family have been residing in the house constructed by the plaintiff in plaint A schedule property from 1996 onwards. The remaining extent out of 10 cents i.e. 7 cents of land along with the family house were given to the defendant by virtue of a Settlement Deed No.3029/1998 of S.R.O, Kochi, and the same is plaint B schedule property. According to the plaintiff, there is a pathway for the ingress and egress towards plaint A schedule property provided by the father along the northern portion of plaint B schedule property in east-west direction to reach the corporation road west. The father of the plaintiff and defendant died in the year 2005 and thereafter the defendant expressed dissatisfaction regarding the use of the said pathway. Thereafter, the defendant obstructed the pathway on 13.09.2011. Later, a complaint was lodged and accordingly the defendant consented to shift the pathway from north of the plaint B schedule property towards the southern portion of the plaint B schedule property and the plaintiff agreed for the same. The said pathway is shown as plaint C schedule pathway. The defendant constructed compound wall separating the plaint C schedule pathway from the remaining property of the plaint B schedule property. It was contended that after providing plaint C schedule pathway, the defendant demanded portion of land out of plaint A schedule property, though he had no right to do so. The plaintiff claimed right of easement by necessity over plaint C schedule pathway.

5. The defendant appeared and filed written statement. The contention inter alia is that the present corporation road on the western side of B schedule property was originally a 'thodu’. It is only in the year 2003 -2004, the corporation had laid concrete slabs over the north canal and concreted the pathway. It was contended that later dispute arose between the plaintiff and Chakkalakkal family regarding access towards plaint A schedule property available through their property. Pursuant to the dispute with the Chakkalakkal family, the plaintiff approached C.I. of Police, Palluruthy and preferred a complaint against the defendant. The defendant was summoned before the police and matter was referred for counseling and conciliation to Janamythri Police. Then through mediation, a settlement was arrived at, in which the defendant agreed to provide a pathway having a width of 6 links and a length of 70 links along the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property and in return the plaintiff agreed to provide a strip of land along the northern side of plaint A schedule property. Accordingly, the property was measured and sketch was prepared with the help of Village