JUDGMENT

The first respondent instituted O.S.No.61 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Parappanangadi for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from entering into plaint B schedule pathway, which, according to the plaintiff, is the way leading to his property. There is also a prayer for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the plaint B schedule pathway to its original position.

2. The defendant disputed the claim made by the plaintiff.

According to the defendant, the pathway in question was intended for entering into his property and not to the property of the plaintiff. It was contended that the pathway was not being used by the plaintiff and that he has no right to use the same.

3. The trial court granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. A Commissioner was also appointed, who inspected the property and filed a report. The report would indicate that the way was in existence. Later, according to the plaintiff, the defendant violated the order of injunction and constructed a compound wall on the western side of his property extending upto the northernmost point thereby