JUDGMENT :

The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2012 passed in A.S.No.75 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2015 passed in O.S. No.293 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanapuram.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their own ranking, as before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff, as per the averments made in the plaint, in short, is as follows:

(i) The plaint 'A' schedule property is having an extent of 1312 cents comprised in Resurvey No.285/21 of Valvachagostam village belongs to her husband and the property belongs to the first defendant who sold the same to one Regin Merit through a sale deed No.1667/2004 of Palliyadi Sub Registrar office including the plaint 'B' Schedule property. Subsequently the husband of the plaintiff purchased the plaint 'A' schedule property and 'B' schedule property through a sale deed No. 4251/2011 and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. 'B' schedule property is the pathway for the 'A' schedule property. The husband of the plaintiff is working in abroad and due to the unexpected unlawful acts of the defendants, the plaintiff filed this suit on behalf of her husband.

(ii) The first defendant is the owner of the adjacent property. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant and the third defendant is the another son of the first defendant and both are adjacent owners. The north eastern side of the plaintiff's husband's property is described as 'B' schedule property, which is a pathway having an average width of four feet which leads to the public pathway and further leads to Mulagumoodu to Marthandam National Highway. A five feet width of concrete pathway goes from east to west direction from the National Highways. The 'B' schedule pathway starts from the public pathway leads to the plaintiff's husband's property. He acquired right over the plaint 'B' pathway by easementary right of grant and prescription as well as title holder. The plaintiff, her husband and his previous title holder have all along been using the 'B' schedule pathway as of right and title. Now the defendants are making attempts to obstruct the plaint 'B' schedule property pathway. While they have no right on 25.11.2013 at about 5.00 p.m., due to the absence of the husband of the plaintiff, the defendants along with his labourers attempted to close the 'B' schedule property pathway, by putting gate and also attempted to construct the compound wall. The same was resisted by the plaintiff by her timely intervention. The plaintiff also gave complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thuckalay, to prevent the illegal activities of the defendant's and they came to the spot and asked the defendants not to obstruct the plaint 'B' schedule property pathway, but they are not amenable to their words and the police advised the plaintiff to seek remedy through civil Court. After filing of this suit and obtained injunction, the first defendant continued the constructions and encroached the 'B' schedule pathway by projecting the sunshade of his building and suppressing the material facts in O.S. No.40 of 2014 and got status quo order and violated the order of the Court. Hence the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and right of pathway over the 'B' schedule property and for permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction.

4. Resisting the claim made by the plaintiff, the defendants filed a detailed written statement contending interalia that the third defendant in this suit as plaintiff has filed another civil suit in O.S. No. 40 of 2014 before the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram against certain persons. In the above suit, the plaintiff has claimed relief for permanent injunction against the defendants from drawing electric line and water supply line to the building situated in the pr