Insufficient evidence led to the conclusion that statutory requirements for easement by prescription were not established.

J U D G M E N T

Defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for injunction have come up with the present appeal.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was obtained by the plaintiff by virtue of sale deed No.2836/1985 of SRO Kuravilangadu. The properties of the defendants are scheduled in item No.2. When the plaintiff purchased item No.1, item No.2 property was owned by one Rugmini and said Rugmini sold it to one George and from him the defendants purchased the same. Kallupura-Marozhuka road runs on the southern side of item No.2. The predecessor of the property owned by the defendants namely Rugmini sold 15 cents of land on the south-eastern side to one Kochuveettil Achamma in the year 1984. When Rugmini sold her property, she left 8 feet width land on the eastern side of 15 cents of land for ingress and egress to the remaining property and made a road through the property. In 1985, when the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property and started residing in it. He was using the road for ingress and egress. Thereafter, the plaintiff made a cartable road through his property and thereby was using the same. The said property was being used by the plaintiff for last 21 years and thus a prescriptive right of easement has been crystalised. Defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiff has no easement right over the plaint item No.2 property. The statement that the plaintiff was using item No.2 property for ingress and egress was also denied. It was further contended that when the 1^st defendant was away in the year 2007, the plaintiff constructed a road as continuation of road, which was carved out in the plaintiff's property. Thus, it was contended that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 and A2 documents were produced and PW1 to PW5 were examined. On behalf of defendants, no documentary evidence was adduced and DW1 and DW3 were examined. Exts.C1 to C2 series are the report, rough sketch and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to relief and accordingly decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court by judgment dated 07.03.2012 dismissed the appeal and hence the present appeal.

3. Heard Shri.Thomas George, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri.Abhraham George, the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. On 04.01.2016 this Court issued notice on the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal, which reads as under:-

(a) Whether the courts below was legally correct in holding that the plaintiff has right of easement by prescription over the plaint item No.3 road and he is entitled for prohibitory injunction against the defendants?

(b) Whether the statutory ingredients of easement by prescription is proved by the plaintiff in order to grant the relief sought for by him in the plaint.

(c) Whether the Lower Appellate Court have dealt with the question of relief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit in a correct legal perspective?

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the evidence of PW3 to PW5 will not support the case of the plaintiff for an easement by prescription. The pathway in question as found by the Advocate Commissioner under Ext.C2(a) plan reaches upto the compound of the defendants. The statement of the plaintiff that Rugmini had carved out 8 feet width pathway for access is not prov