JUDGMENT

The appellants filed O.S.No.261 of 1999 before the Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor seeking a decree of declaration and injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. Their claim was that they prescribed right of way along plaint C schedule pathway. The respondents, part of whose property is plaintiff C schedule, opposed that claim by contending that such a pathway never existed and the same was the ridge of their paddy field. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit as per the judgment dated 11.06.2007. In the appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, the learned Additional District judge, North Paravur confirmed the said judgment and decree. Aggrieved by the same, this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code is preferred.

2. The substantial questions of law formulated for consideration are,-

1) Is not a dominant owner qualified to prescribe right of way along the ridge of a reclaimed paddy field?

2) Is the finding of facts by the courts below in relation to the claim of the appellants that they prescribed right of way along plaint C schedule is so irrational attracting the blame of being perverse?

3. The 1st appellant is the owner