Kerala High Court
C.Remadevi vs Radhakrishna Pillai on 5 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
Friday, the 5th day of April 2024 / 16th Chaithra, 1946
IA.NO.1/2024 IN RSA NO. 171 OF 2024
OS 264/2017 OF MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM
AS 7/2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
C.REMADEVI, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SADHUPURATHU
HOUSE, ELIPPAKULAM P.O., VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, PALLICKAL, MAVELIKARA
TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690503.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
PARATTUKADAVIL THEKKATHIL, KOIPPALLIKARAZHMA, PERUNGALA VILLAGE
MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690106.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to stay operation of
the judgment and decree in AS.No.07/2022 dated 09.02.2024 of the
Addl.District Judge-I, Mavelikara, pending disposal of the Second Appeal.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S.S.K.SAJI, MAYAMOL T.S., G.R.MANJU, SARAN SIVAN, BHARATH V.GOPAL,
Advocates for the petitioner, the court passed the following:
R.S.A.No.171 of 2024
..1..
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
R.S.A.No. 171 of 2024
&
I.A.No.1 of 2024 in R.S.A.No. 171 of 2024
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024
O R D E R
Admit. Issue notice to the respondent on the
following substantial questions of law:
(1) If a mere permission to use a pathway
has been given by the plaintiff to the
defendant, which has not ripened and
crystallized into a right of easement,
is not the permission liable to be
treated as withdrawn the moment the
plaintiff objects to the user of such
pathway?
(2) Has not the First Appellate Court erred
in reversing the judgment of the trial
..2..
court to refuse the relief for
injunction, finding that a permission to
use the pathway has been given, when
such permission as per the plaint claim
is only to use pathway by walking
through the same and not for playing
vehicles?
(3) Whether relief sought for by the
plaintiff is liable to be refused when
the defendant fail to establish his
right to use the disputed pathway,
except in the context of a permission
claiming to have been given by the
plaintiff? Was not the defendant bound
to prove the defense contention that the
disputed pathway was constructed by the
utilizing the funds of the defendant as
well?
..3..
I.A.No.1 of 2024 in R.S.A.No. 171 of 2024
The parties are directed to maintain the status
quo with respect to the scheduled properties. The
status to be maintained will be the status as
reported by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 Commission
report.
Post on 06.06.2024
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
TR
05-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
