The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by granting a decree over a part of a width of 7.5 feet in the C Schedule property.
An appeal was preferred by the defendant before the first appellate companyrt for grant of easement in excess of a width of 7.5 feet but numberappeal was preferred by the plaintiffs.
but was extended up to 10 ft.
The appellate companyrt reversed the decree of the trial companyrt and dismissed the suit.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the Second Appeal in the High Court and the Second Appeal was decreed.
The decree in Second Appeal was number companyfined to 7.5 ft.
313 of 1990.
The suit was filed by the respondents for a declaration of easementary right of prescription over an east west width of ten feet on the eastern portion of the appellants property on the south, describing it as the C Schedule property.
In this appeal preferred by the defendant, it is submitted that even if the High Court wanted to reverse the decree of the first appellate companyrt, it companyld number have decreed the suit to any extent beyond 7.5 ft.
This is an appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kerala rendered on 1.4.1998 in Second Appeal No.
Jagannadha Rao, J. Special leave granted.
