Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sarojamma vs Sri. Linganna on 2 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50245
RSA No. 411 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.411 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAROJAMMA,
W/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT KODIMOLE BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE,
KODIMOLE POST, KASABA HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571 313.
2. SMT. SHASHIKALA,
W/O M. SHIVASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.119,
23RD MAIN ROAD,
2ND STAGE, J.P. NAGARA,
MYSURU - 570 008.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
3. SMT. PRABAMANI,
Location: HIGH W/O H.N. MAHESH,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.2837,
8TH ROSS, R.P. ROAD,
NANJANGUDU-571 301.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. LINGANNA,
S/O LATE BASAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50245
RSA No. 411 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA,
S/O LATE. BASAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
3. SRI. SWAMY B,
S/O LATE BASAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS ARE
R/AT KODIMOLE BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE,
KODIMOLE POST,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGAR,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT
AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.31/2014
ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50245 RSA No. 411 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property and there is also easementary right over the 'B' schedule property for ingress and egress of the 'A' schedule property. It is also contended that the same is prevented by the defendants. The defendants filed the written statement contending that the claim made by the plaintiffs is false and that they are not entitled for any relief of easementary right. It is also contended that the plaintiffs themselves have put up the construction by encroaching and closing the toilet, which is used by the plaintiffs and themselves. With the bad intention, the plaintiffs encroached their property to give trouble to them mentioning wrong boundary in the present suit.
4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court taken note of the evidence of D.W.1 in paragraph No.25, wherein D.W.1 in the cross-examination categorically admitted that when the plaintiffs had tried to remove the cactus found on the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:50245 RSA No. 411 of 2025 HC-KAR 'A' schedule passage, the defendants have interfered. When the admitted document itself establish the fact that there exists a passage on the western side of 'C' schedule property within 'B' schedule property for the enjoyment of the parties to that document, the plaintiffs being the beneficiaries under that document are not accepted to denied the same. Having taken note of all these materials, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the defendants are interfering with the easementary right, which is provided to the plaintiffs and the same is admitted by D.W.1 and decreed the suit.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 in paragraph No.14, that the admissions of D.W.1 clearly noticed that there is a pathway on the southern portion of 'B' schedule property morefully described in the plaint 'A' schedule property. When there is existence of plaint 'A' schedule passage, there is no alternative access to reach the site properties of the plaintiffs as described in the plaint 'C' schedule property. The First Appellate Court also re-assessed -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50245 RSA No. 411 of 2025 HC-KAR both oral and documentary evidence available on record and even extracted the admission of D.W.1 and also taken note of the document of Ex.D.1. It is observed that on perusal of Ex.D.1 i.e., registered sale dated 11.11.2009, it is noticed that defendant No.1 had purchased a vacant site bearing junger No.32 measuring east to west 42 feet and north to south 24 feet situated at Basavanapura Village from one Manjunatha Swamy S/o late Chennappa. As per Section 13(A) of the Easement Act, the person who has got the property by transfer or bequeath from someone and to enjoy that easement in other property of transferor or testator is necessary, then the transferee will be entitled to such easement. The said section provides the easement rights on the other immovable property of the transferor should be by way of necessity. Necessity means absolute necessity and not as a matter of mere convenience. D.W.1 categorically admitted that when the plaintiffs tried to remove the fence, the defendants obstructed to do such act and the same is observed in paragraph No.16.
6. When such finding is given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court considering the document of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:50245 RSA No. 411 of 2025 HC-KAR Ex.D.1 and also the admission on the part of D.W.1 and when the obstruction is caused to ingress and egress the property of the plaint 'A' schedule property, I do not find any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. The very admission on the part of D.W.1 takes away the defence, which she raised in the written statement. Both factual aspects and question of law was taken note of by both the Courts and hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41