J U D G M E N T

Undaunted by the concurrent findings against him, the defendant in O.S No.998/1999 before the 3rd Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram has come up in appeal.

2. Most of the facts are not in dispute. It will be easier to understand the matter by referring to Ext.C1(a) plan which is an admitted one as far as the lie of the properties are concerned.

3. One Ambika owned nearly 20 cents of land and she, by virtue of Ext.A1 dated 04.06.1976, assigned 9.375 cents of property to the defendant which is situated on the western side and the eastern 9.375 cents to one Philip, S/o.Thomas. The property assigned in favour of the defendant i.e. CDEFC in Ext.C1(a) is shown as A schedule to the plaint and the property assigned to Philip on the eastern side i.e EFGHIJKLE is shown as B schedule to the plaint. It may be noticed that in the same document a way was provided through the northern side of R.S.A. No.689/2008 2 A schedule property which in Ext.C1(a) is shown as ACFH. Ext.A1 itself recites that both the persons have right to use the said pathway to go to their respective properties as well as to take vehicles. By Ext.A2 dated 20.07.1982, Philip, S/o. Thomas who owned prope