The court clarified the extent of easement rights under a partition deed and emphasized that courts cannot expand these rights beyond explicit definitions in such deeds.

JUDGMENT

The 1^st defendant in OS No.164/2008 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Changanacherry, a suit for injunction, has come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree dismissing the suit by the Additional District Court, Kottayam, in AS No.73/2009, appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was allotted to one Indiradevi as D schedule to the partition deed No.1234/80 of Changanacherry SRO. Her mother was having a life interest over the said property, which was released later by the mother in favour of Indiradevi by release deed No.2142/82 of the Changanacherry SRO. Plaint item No.2 is a way starts from Changanacherry-Vazhoor road and passes through the western side of the property of the 1st defendant, and thereafter through the southern boundary of his property and later through the eastern boundary of the property of defendants 1 and 2 towards the north and east. Defendants 1 and 2 are the brothers of Indiradevi and are parties to the partition deed. The property was purchased by the plaintiff from Indiradevi by sale deed No.146/94, and thus he is in possession of the property and is also using plaint item No.2 as a way. On 12.4.2008, the 1^st defendant tried to construct a wall in item No.2. The plaintiff informed the police, who later instructed the defendants not to proceed with the construction. Since an attempt was made by the defendants to close down the pathway, the suit was instituted. The 1^st defendant resisted the suit by contending that the descriptions of the plaint item Nos.1 & 2 are incorrect and that there is no mention of any way as plaint item No.2 in the partition deed. There is a way, which starts from the Vazhoor road and proceeds towards the east and reaches the property of the 1st defendant and proceeds through the southern boundary of the 1^st defendant’s property towards his house. Though it is correct to state that the parties were granted the right of way under the partition deed, it does not extend north and proceed further. The 2^nd defendant, however, supported the case of the plaintiff. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A4 documents were produced, and PW1 to PW2 were examined. Exts.C1 & C1(a) are the report and rough sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had distorted the truth and suppressed the facts and had failed to prove the existence of the way as claimed by him in the plaint. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred AS No.73/2009 before the Additional District Court, Kottayam and by judgment dated 8.7.2011, the appeal was allowed and hence, the present second appeal.

3. On 8.6.2018, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the appellate court is justified in its conclusion that the description of plaint item No.2 pathway is correct when the grant or reservation of the right of way in Ext.A2 partition deed does not specifically define it?

2. What is the extent of the right acquired by express grant or reservation when the same does not specifically define it?”

4. Heard Sri.N.K.Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/1^st defendant, and Sri.M.V.S Nampoothiry, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that even if a right of easement by grant is prescribed under Ext.A2 partition deed, the plaintiff having failed to prove the existence of the pathway as spec