Easement rights require clear identification of the pathway through a survey plan; insufficient pleadings can lead to dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT

[RSA Nos.549/2011, 569/2011]

1. These two appeals arise from two suits - O.S.No.201/2006 & O.S.No. 252/2006 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravoor. Both suits are disposed of by a common judgment by the Trial Court, and hence, both appeals are considered together.

2. The appellants in R.S.A No. 549 and 569 of 2011 are the same persons. They are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.201/2006 and the defendants in O.S.No. 252/2006. They are husband and wife.

The defendants in O.S.No.201/2006 are also husband and wife.

3. The 1^st defendant in O.S.No. 201/2006 is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 252/2006.

4. The parties are referred to according to their status in O.S.No.201/2006.

Plaint A Schedule property having an extent of 13.913 cents

5. belonged to the 2^nd plaintiff. The 1^st defendant has Plaint B Schedule Property, which has an approximate extent of 47 cents, on the western side of Plaint A Schedule Property. Plaint B Schedule Property. O.S.No. 201/2006 is filed for declaration of right of way by easement by prescription and necessity over plaint C schedule pathway and consequential prohibitory injunction. Plaint C Schedule pathway is shown as having a width of 8 links and a length of 40 meters, which starts from the northwestern portion of Plaint A Schedule Property, proceeding west through the north of Plaint B Schedule Property, and proceeding to the south through the western side of Plaint B schedule property and reaches on a way which starts from the western main road and proceeding towards east. 6. O.S.No.252/2006 is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No. 201/2006 seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction on the allegation that the defendants therein, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 201/2006 are attempting to cut open a pathway through Plaint A Schedule property therein. The Plaint B Schedule property in O.S.No.201/2006 is the Plaint A Schedule property in O.S.No.252/2006.

The material pleadings of the plaintiffs are that the 2nd plaintiff

7. obtained Plaint A Schedule property as per Ext. A1 Sale Deed dated 08.02.1985; that the Plaint A and B Schedule properties along with other properties originally belonged to one Meenakshi Kunjamma; that by virtue of Power of Attorney executed by Meenakshi Kunjamma in favour of the father of the 1^st defendant - Andrews, the property was in possession and management of the father of the 1^st defendant; that on 07.01.1983, the 1^st plaintiff entered into an Agreement with the father of the 1^st defendant for purchase of Plaint A Schedule property and entire sale consideration was paid on 31.12.1983 as per Ext. A2 and the Plaint A Schedule property were put in possession of the plaintiffs on the very same date that the plaintiffs started residing in the Plaint A Schedule property from the said date, and from the date of residence in the Plaint A Schedule property, they have been using the Plaint C Schedule pathway for accessing the main road.

The defendants filed a Written Statement opposing the suit

8. prayers contending, inter alia, that Plaint C Schedule pathway is not in existence, that the plaintiffs are attempting to cut open a pathway through Plaint B schedule property, that the plaintiffs are having alternate ways to reach the main road through property purchased by the 1^st plaintiff on the northern side and through another property purchased by the 2^nd plaintiff on the southern side.

9. On the basis of Exts. C1 and C1 (a) Commission Report in O.S.No.201/2006 and Exts. C2 and C2 (a) Commission Report in O.S.No.252/2006, the Trial Court found the existence of Plaint C Schedule pathway through Plaint B Schedule property. The Trial Court found that the use of the pathway for the statutory period is proved by the plaintiffs on the strength of Ext. A2 doc