The courts below have concurrently dismissed the suit for declaration as regards the existence of a pathway and for consequential injunction. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that the property possessed by defendants 1 and 2 originally belonged to one Schidananda Pillai. It was the said Sachidananda Pillai who dedicated the pathway for use by the public.
2. The courts below have categorically found that the property did not belong to Sachidananda Pillai and instead to one Padmakumari. There is paucity of evidence to show that Padmakumari had surrendered any portion of her property for the construction of a public pathway. The property on either sides of the 'Thodu' belongs to defendants 1 and 2 only. The courts below have dismissed the suit after a correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence in the case.
There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal and is dismissed.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE