Kerala High Court
Joseph John vs P.A.Johny Kutty @ Yohannan on 30 November, 2021
RSA No.530/2021 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
Tuesday, the 30th day of November 2021 / 9th Agrahayana, 1943
RSA NO. 530 OF 2021
OS 623/2015 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,ALAPPUZHA
AS 74/2019 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. JOSEPH JOHN, AGED 56, S/O. JOHN, ATTATHICHIRA HOUSE, THEKKEKKARA
P.O, THEKKEKKARA MURI, CHAMBAKULAM VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, PIN
CODE-688 503.
2. JOSEPH KOCHUPURA, AGED 63, S/O. EANAS VALAYAM HOUSE, THEKKEKKARA
P.O, THEKKEKKARA MURI, CHAMBAKULAM VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, PIN
CODE-688 503.
3. THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 49, S/O. GEORGE, PALATHARA HOUSE, THEKKEKKARA
MURI, CHAMBAKULAM VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, PIN CODE-688 503.
4. FR. DAMIYANOS, AGED 65, VICAR, ST. JOHNS CHURCH, THEKKEKKARA P.O,
THEKKEKKARA MURI, CHAMBAKULAM VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, PIN CODE-688
503.
5. MAR JOSEPH PERUMTHOTTAM, AGED 70, ARCH BISHOP OF CHANGANACHERY,
BISHOP'S HOUSE, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN CODE
BY ADVS.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.),SHIBU JOSEPH,AJITH VISWANATHAN,SANU S
MALAKEEL,SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
P.A.JOHNY KUTTY @ YOHANNAN, AGED 60,S/O. ANTONY, PUTHENPARAMBIL,
THEKKEKKARA P.O, THEKKEKKARA MURI, CHAMBAKULAM VILLAGE, KUTTANAD
TALUK, PIN CODE-688 503
This Regular second appeal having come up for orders on 30.11.2021,
the court on the same day passed the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the
respondent/caveator.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in
AS.No.74/2019 and the Cross Objection therein of the Addl.District Court-
II, Alapuzha, arising from the judgment and decree in OS.No.623/15 of the
Prl.Munsiff Court,Alappuzha.
The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the
plaintiff. The suit was for an injunction restraining the defendants and
their men from closing or reducing the width of plaint C schedule property
and causing obstruction to the right of way of the plaintiff through the
plaint C schedule property for the ingress and egress to and from the
RSA No.530/2021 2/2
plaint A schedule property including vehicular trafffic.
In the written statement filed by the dfendants, it is contended
that the pathway, which is now available, is only having a width of six
feet and that the said pathway is a part of lane, which passes through the
plaint B schedule property. Added to this, the defendants contended that
the church had constructed a wall on the northern side of his property
after leaving law lying area outside the wall.
The trial court decreed the suit in part. In appeal, the first
appellate court dismissed the appeal and allowed the Cross Objection
therein. Hence,this RSA.
After having heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants and
the learned counsel for the respondent, it is just and proper to pass
order directing the parties to settle the matter through mediation. It is
submitted that the parties shall make every endeavour to settle the matter
out of court to the extent possible. In view of the submission, parties
are directed to appear before this Court on 05.01.2022 at 10.15.a.m.
No notice from the Registry to the parties is required.
Post on 05.01.2022 at 10.15.a.m.
Sd/- N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE
30-11-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
