The court held that claims for easement rights require concrete evidence, and a mere assertion of necessity is insufficient without proof of a public pathway's existence.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. These appeals raise a common question and, hence, they are being considered together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

Three suits, OS Nos.62/2006, 65/2006 and 72/2007, were tried together by the Munsiff’s Court, Sulthanbathery. The plaintiff in OS No.62/2006 is the appellant in these appeals, who is the 1^st defendant in OS No.72/2007. The plaintiff in OS No.72/2007 got herself transposed as the plaintiff in OS No.65/2006. One Kallingal Krishnan Nambiar held a vast extent of land under the Wayanad Colonial Scheme, and got patta as per W.C.S. No.196/1970. He transferred the plaint schedule property to his son Venugopalan vide document No.2555/1998 of SRO, S.Bathery. Venugopalan in turn sold the property to the plaintiff in OS No.62/2006 by document No.1142/2002 (the number is mistakenly shown and the correct number of the said document is 1148/2002) and that the plaintiff constructed a building in the plaint schedule property and is residing there. While so, it is alleged that the defendants attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule property and hence, the suit, OS No.62/2006. The 1^st defendant filed a written statement stating that he had filed OS No.65/2006, contending that A schedule property therein belonged to him and that the plaintiff in OS No.62/2006 attempted to trespass into the property. The 2^nd defendant has got property in the east of the plaint schedule property and that there was a pathway in existence having a width of 10 feet starting from S.Bathery-Panamaram road and lying outside the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property. The 2^nd defendant therein had property to the east of the said pathway and the pathway reaches the property of the 1^st defendant. According to the plaintiff in OS No.65/2006, A schedule property absolutely belongs to him, purchased by him as per document No.735/2004 of SRO, S.Bathery and B schedule road starts from S.Bathery-Panamaram main road and has a length of 34 metres and a width of 10 feet. The said pathway is the only way leading to A schedule property. Later, the original plaintiff abandoned the said suit and the 2^nd defendant herself got transposed as the plaintiff as per order in IA No.449/2006. Subsequent to the same, the plaint was amended by contending that the B schedule road was trespassed by the 1^st defendant (plaintiff in OS No.62/2006), and it has to be restored to the former status. The 1^st defendant, plaintiff in OS No.62/2006, resisted the claim by contending that the documents of title produced by him would not show that there existed a 10 feet wide pathway. Even though a 10 feet wide pathway is shown in the southern side of the plaint A schedule property, it is not clear as to where it starts and where it ends. B schedule pathway in the plaint does not go through any boundary of the 1^st defendant and that the document produced by the plaintiff does not show that it passes through any boundary of the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd defendant in OS No.62/2006, who preferred OS No.72/2007, contended that she purchased the property from Krishnan Nambiar and one Chathankudiyil Sasidharan vide document No.1039/01 and the southern side of the plaint schedule property is Beenachi- Panamaram PWD road, from which a public way shown as plaint B schedule starts. B schedule way, which according to the plaintiff is a public way, has a width of 10 feet, and starts and reaches plaint A schedule property and then goes through the western boundary of plaint A schedule towards north. The suit was resisted by the plaintiff in OS No.62/2006. All the suits were tried jointly by the Munsiff’s court. On behalf of the pla