The absence of necessary parties in an appeal renders it unmaintainable, and established easement rights prevail over contested ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

These second appeals and the original petition arise out of a common cause and hence, being considered and disposed of together by a common judgment.

2. The appellant has come up in these appeals aggrieved by a concurrent finding regarding a right of pathway by Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. Three suits i.e. O.S.Nos.1271/2007, 1158/2007 and 1221/2007 were tried together and by common judgment and decree dated 18.03.2016, the II Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, decreed the suits filed by 1^st respondent and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant preferred three appeals AS No 19/2016, AS No 20/2016 and AS No 24/2016. All the three appeals were dismissed.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals are as follows: O.S.Nos.1158/2007 and 1221/2007 were filed by the respondents herein seeking for a declaration that the appellant does not have any right over an extent 4 metre pathway, except right of use. On filing of these suits, the appellant instituted O.S.No.1271/2007 for a declaration that the respondents herein does not have any right over the pathway. In the suit filed by the appellant, defendants 4 to 44 were impleaded, being the subsequent purchasers of undivided share of property held by respondents 1 and 2.

3.1 With the above backdrop, the facts pleaded in the plaint in each of the suits will be narrated in brief in order to appreciate the rival submissions.

Plaint averments in O.S.Nos.1158/2007 and 1221/2007:

These two suits contain common averments. The plaintiff therein purchased 11.25 cents of land in Survey No.148/2 of Poonithura Village on the west of plaint A schedule pathway from Joseph Kuttikattu with a right of way through the plaint A schedule pathway as per Document No.1657/2003 of SRO, Maradu. By the said document, it is contended that the plaintiff was given an easement by grant of using plaint A schedule pathway for ingress and egress into the plaint B schedule property. The plaintiff constructed a compound wall on the eastern boundaries of the plaint B schedule property, separating A schedule pathway and put up a gate for ingress and egress to plaint A schedule property. According to them, plaint A schedule pathway is separate and distinct. The defendant, i.e.plaintiff in O.S.No.1271/2007 purchased C schedule property from Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) and other properties during May – June 2007. One of the items purchased by the defendant includes the property lying on the western side of the plaint A schedule pathway and southern side of a 7 metre wide road. On 29.09.2007, the defendant attempted to construct a compound wall on the northern side of the plain A schedule property, wherein it meets with the 7 metre road so as to enclose the entire 4 metre road along with his other properties and hence the suits.

The defendant appeared in the suit and contested the suit contending that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of 12.620 cents of land purchased by virtue of Document No.2886/2007 SRO, Maradu. A schedule pathway in the plaint is part and parcel of the property purchased by the defendant and hence, neither the plaintiff nor anybody under him had occasion to use the portion of the pathway. The title of the defendant on the eastern side of the property extending to 11.525 cents of land cannot be disputed by the plaintiffs and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Plaint averments in O.S.No.1271/2007:

Finding that the two other suits filed may cause detriment to the appellant, he filed O.S.No.1271/2007, s