Plaintiff is the appellant. His suit was

for perpetual injunction. He sought to restrain the

defendants from trespassing into the plaint B

schedule property. Commission of any act of waste

in the B schedule property was also sought to be

prevented by injunction. The trial court decreed

the suit restraining the defendants from

trespassing into the B schedule property. The

defendants went in appeal. The appellate court

reversed the decree of the trial court and

dismissed the suit.

2.

Facts are simple and go as under: The

plaint A schedule property is plaintiff's. The

property on the south of it is defendants'. There

is a ridge in the property of the plaintiff. The

said ridge is close to the property of the

defendants. The ridge is shown in the plaint as the

B schedule property. The plaintiff contended that

the defendants had no manner of right in the B

schedule ridge. The defendants contended that they

had a right of easement by prescription to use the

B schedule ridge as a pathway and also to stack

harvested crops.

3.

Both sides adduced evidence before the

trial court. PWs 1 and 2 and DWs 1 and 2 were

examined. Exts A1 to A3, B1, C1 and C2 were marked.

4.

The plea of easement set up by the

defendants was not found favoured with the trial

court. Therefore the said court granted a decree

restraining the defendants from trespassing into

the B schedule ridge. The first appellate court

concurred with the said finding of the trial court.

But the decree was reversed to dismiss the suit

holding that the activity intended by the

plaintiff, if permitted to be done, would violate

the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation

Order.

5.

Heard Shri.T.C.Suresh Menon, the learned

counsel for plaintiff and Shri.P.R.Venketesh, the

learned counsel for the defendants.

6.

The defendants have no claim of ownership

in the A schedule property of the plaintiff.

Similarly, the plaintiff has no claim in the

property of the defendants. Both the properties are

paddy fields. There is a ridge in the A schedule

property and is close to the northern boundary of

the property of the defendants. The said ridge is

the subject-matter of the suit. The suit was filed

wanting to prevent the defendants from trespassing

upon the ridge. The defendants contended that they

had a right of easement by prescription to use the

ridge as a pathway and to stack harvested crops.

Both the courts below unanimously found that the

easement claimed was not available. But the

appellate court reversed the decree of the trial

court holding that there would be violation of the

Kerala Land Utilisation Order if the injunction

granted by the trial court was retained.

7.

The so-called violation of the provisions

of the Land Utilisation Order was not the case of

any of the parties to the suit. If there is any

possibility of any such violation, there are

authorities under the Land Utilisation Order to

take appropriate action. The decree of injunction

shall not prevent the competent authority in

exercising its powers. Having found that the

easement pleaded by the defendants was not

available to them, the appellate court was not

justified in reversing the decree of the trial

court. This is precisely the substantial question

of law involved in the second appeal. I am in

complete agreement with the learned counsel for the

plaintiff that the first appellate court went wrong

in interfering with the decree after concurring

with the finding of the trial court that the

defendants did not have any easement.

8.

The learned counsel for the defendants

submits that the finding on the plea of easement

ought to have been in favour of the defendants. It

is requested to find the easement claimed by the

defendants in their favour and retain the decree of

dismissal of the suit. I have gone through the

pleadings in the written-statement. What is stated

is only that the defen