The right of way includes the right to maintain and access a property, which cannot be obstructed unlawfully.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are owners of separate properties situated in Survey Nos.855/4, 855/5 of Thrikkakara Village, and have constructed independent residential houses. The properties owned by the petitioners, initially belonged to the father of the 4^th respondent. Those properties devolved upon the 4^th respondent, her siblings and her mother. The predecessors in title of the petitioners had purchased their properties from the brother of the 4^th respondent as per different title deeds. Later, petitioners purchased their properties as per Ext.P1 to Ext.P16 title deeds. The access to their property is through a way provided to them and specified in the title deeds itself.

2. The petitioners allege that they had laid interlocking tiles through the 29 metre portion of the way to their individual houses, but for the 30 metre portion of the pathway, the 4^th respondent objected to the laying of tiles. A rough sketch of the pathway and the division of plots have been produced as Ext.P18. photographs of the incomplete mode in which the tiles have been laid have also been produced, as Ext.P19 to Ext.P21. According to the petitioners, the 30 metre portion of the way is remaining without any maintenance and is not convenient for the movement of vehicles. 4^th respondent is objecting to the laying of interlocking tiles over the 30 metre portion of way and hence, they seek police protection for their life, property as well as the workers against all threats while carrying out the maintenance of the private road to their respective houses.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent stating that he had purchased his property from the 4^th respondent and that he objected to the paving of tiles since he apprehended such work will dismantle the stand of his gate.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent, who alleged that the private road mentioned in the writ petition as well as the adjacent properties was originally lying as one property possessed by her father and that the petitioners purchased the properties from her brother, and have constructed residential houses. It is also stated that only the 3^rd respondent had purchased his property from her. The 4^th respondent further alleged that she has not transferred the right of ownership of the private road in Re-survey No.855/4 of Thrikkakara Village, (the 30 metre portion) and stated that though it is a road that can be used by the petitioners as well as the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, the petitioners have no absolute ownership over the said private road, but have only a right of way and hence they cannot lay any tiles on the road. According to her, petitioners have only a limited right to use the pathway for vehicular conveyance and for laying electricity and telephone cables, as well as pipelines. The concrete tiles have been laid by the petitioners on the road exclusively owned by them, while the 3rd respondent had concreted the portion of the road in front of the gate with her consent, and the petitioners have raised the complaint with false allegations. The 4^th respondent also asserts that the private road in question cannot be paved without her consent and that the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs as they had never approached either her or her mother and sister for laying any tiles on the way.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

6. Concededly, the petitioners have a right of way through the property of the 4^th respondent which has been earmarked as a common way in the title deeds of not only the petit