The right to use a path for accessing one's property can be established through long-term use and relevant property documents, regardless of explicit claims under the Easement Act.

EASWARAN S., J -------------------------------------

R.S.A No.168 of 2013 ------------------------------------

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2025 JUDGMENT Defeated plaintiff in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Munsiff’s Court, Payyannur in O.S.207 of 2008 affirmed in A.S.No.126 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Payyannur.

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

The Plaint A schedule property along with the other properties originally belonged to the common ownership of one Mathradan Puthirakkal Narayani Amma and others. By document No.1551 of 1961, the members of the Tharavad partitioned the property. The C schedule property in the deed was allotted to Lakshmikuty Amma and Savithri Amma jointly. While they were in joint possession, they obtained a purchase certificate in 1976. Item No.8 of C schedule of the said partition deed was transferred in the favour of the plaintiff vide sale deed No.808 of 2004. The northern boundary to the said deed was described as a pathway. According to the plaintiff, a road starting from the tar road on the northern side of the A schedule and leading to the A schedule which is shown as B schedule which is having an eight feet width used by the predecessor of the plaintiff, which was also used by him for ingress and egress of the plaint A schedule. On the northern side of A schedule at the western side of B schedule, the property belonged to Lakshmikutty Amma, Unnikrishnan and Divakaran and they have transferred the property to the defendant and he is in possession of the same. The defendant has no separate right or possession over B schedule. The same is meant as an access to the property of the plaintiff and for the last thirty(30) years his predecessors have been using the B schedule road without obstruction and as of right. On18. 12.2008, when the power of attorney holder went to the property, he found that the defendant tried to trespass into the A schedule property to construct a laterite stone compound wall where the B schedule property touches the property of the plaintiff. Hence the suit. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff has no right over the property as alleged and that neither him nor his predecessors used the said way for the last thirty(30) years as alleged. It was further contended that the defendants has no property touching the property of the plaintiff and that when the sharers who were allotted B schedule property to the partition deed of the year 1961 sold the property to the 2^nd defendant, they had carved out a path way for their beneficial enjoyments of the properties. On behalf of the plaintiff Exts.A1 to A7 documents were produced and PW1 was examined. On behalf of defendants Exts.B1 to B6 were produced and DW1 was examined. Exts.C1 to C4 are the reports and plans filed by the Advocate Commissioner. In Ext.C1 report, the plaint B schedule property was identified. CW1 was examined to prove the contents of Ext.C1 report. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence found that the plaintiff has not established a right of easement by prescription as claimed by him. Therefore, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.126 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Payyannur which was also dismissed by judgment dated 17.12.2012 and hence, the appeal.

3. On 04.03.2013, this appeal was admitted by framing the following substantial questions of law:

“i) Are the courts below justified in non-suiting the pl