Karnataka High Court
Lakshminarayana vs G Ramalingappa on 14 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
RSA No. 1503 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1503 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
GAJAMARANAHALLY-572137
KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. G. RAMALINGAPPA
S/O POOJAR GUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. SMT. BHAGAYAMMA
W/O G. RAMALINGAIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
GAJAMARANAHALLY-572137.
KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
RSA No. 1503 of 2022
HC-KAR
BALAMMA W/O LATE PUTTAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
3. PREMALATHA
W/O SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O THUMBADI-572129
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
4. P. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O JYOTHINAGARA
SIRA TOWN-572137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
5. RANGANATHA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O 4TH CROSS
HANUMANTHAPURA
TUMAKURU TOWN-572102.
6. LINGANNA S/O PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O GAJAMARANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK-572137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.04.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.265/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, SIRA.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
RSA No. 1503 of 2022
HC-KAR
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 and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellants.
2. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration and
injunction, wherein easementary right is claimed in respect of
road shown as 'ABCD' in the plaint rough sketch and specific
case of the plaintiffs is also that defendants are causing
obstructions to use the 'ABCD' road to ingress and egress to
the plaintiffs' property.
3. The defendants appeared and filed written
statement denying the very claim made by the plaintiffs.
Hence, the Trial Court framed an issue whether the plaintiffs
prove that they are having easementary right to use and
enjoyment of suit road situated in the portion of land of
defendants marked as 'ABCD' in the plaint of rough sketch to
reach their land, whether the defendants are causing any
obstructions for using the same, whether the defendants prove
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
HC-KAR
that there is no any road in their land and plaintiffs are trying
to create new road in their land, whether the defendants
further prove that the plaintiffs are using another pathway on
the eastern end of land Survey No.158 to reach their land.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleading of
the parties, also given an opportunity to the parties to lead
evidence. The plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and got
admitted the documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The plaintiffs also
examined one witness as P.W.2. The defendants on the other
hand, examined defendant No.2 as D.W.1 and got admitted the
documents 13 documents as Exs.D1 to D13. The defendants
also examined one witness as D.W.2.
5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on the record, particularly
taking note of the claim made by the plaintiffs, discussed the
same in paragraph No.17 and also taken of the fact that
defendants' counsel not suggested even to P.W.1 and P.W.2,
nor deposed in the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 where exactly
"Kallugutte" located in the property of the defendants. The
defendants, being the owners in possession of land bearing
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
HC-KAR
Survey No.158/2, ought to have disclosed where "Kallugutte" is
located in their property and having discussed the same, when
the Trial Court not found any such "Kallugutte" as claimed,
comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs have proved through
material that the road is situated in the defendants' property
described as 'ABCD' in the plaint rough sketch. There is no
contrary is placed by the defendants to disbelieve the rough
sketch annexed to the plaint and also taken note that, it is an
admitted fact that the defendants have to leave road for
ingress and egress to the plaintiffs as per Ex.P2. The
defendants also admitted that there is a road in their property.
The defendants denied the plaint rough sketch. The defendants
have not placed any material to disbelieve the rough sketch
annexed to the plaint. The defendants have also not described
where "Kallugutte" located in their property. Such being the
case, the Court has to accept that the said road is situated in
the defendants' property. The Trial Court even while answering
issue Nos.2 and 3 also taken note of admission on the part of
D.W.1. In the cross-examination, he categorically admits that
caused obstruction. Hence, granted the relief of easementary
right in favour of the plaintiffs.
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
HC-KAR
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court.
The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material
on record, formulated to the point whether the Trial Court erred
in holding that the road shown as 'ABCD' in the plaint sketch is
the road reserved as "Kallugutte" in the partition dated
14.02.1997, whether the Trial Court erred in holding that
except the disputed road i.e. 'ABCD' in the plaint sketch, no
other road is in existence as contended by the defendants and
whether it requires interference of this Court. The First
Appellate Court also reassessed the material on record and
particularly taken note in paragraph No.15 that during the
course of cross-examination of P.W.2, he admits that
defendants have left the pathway in the "Kallugutte" portion.
He has denied that plaintiffs are claiming pathway over
cultivated land. Further, D.W1 in the cross-examination admits
that Survey No.158/2, pathway measuring 20 feet x 200 feet
has been left to reach the land of plaintiffs. He also claims that
plaintiffs are reaching their land in no specific manner and are
attempting to claim road in the cultivable land.
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
HC-KAR
7. Having reassessed the material available on record,
the First Appellate Court also taken note of in paragraph No.21
the contents of Ex.P1/Ex.D5, wherein provision is made to
access the land that is ingress and egress and though
defendants claims that "Kallugutte" pathway is different, but
during the course of cross-examination, D.W.1 admits the
existence of the same. Having taken note of the fact that there
is no other alternative road to access the plaintiffs' property,
granted the relief confirm the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, present
second appeal is filed before this Court.
8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the appellants is that both the Courts have committed an
error in considering the document of Ex.P2 dated 14.02.1997,
particularly the cart track portion and whether the width of the
cart track shown as 20 feet in defendants' lands is legal is to be
considered in this second appeal and contend that both the
Courts have not considered the material on record and it
amounts to perversity.
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
HC-KAR
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and also on perusal of material, particularly the
claim made by the plaintiffs as well as the defence which was
taken by the defendants and considering both oral and
documentary evidence, the witness D.W.1 has produced the
documents of Exs.P11 and P12-photographs wherein the
existence of mud road can be seen. The documents are also not
confronted to P.W.1 as an attempt to rebut the case of the
plaintiffs and also having taken note of 'ABCD' portion which is
shown in the photographs, the Trial Court in detail discussed
the material on record, particularly the admission on the part of
D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination, wherein he
categorically admits that a provision is made to reach the land
of plaintiffs', but not exactly shown where the "Kallugutte"
located in the property of the defendants. But, there are
photographs that there is a pathway to go to the land of
plaintiffs and the defendants being the owners in possession of
land bearing Survey No.158/2 ought to have disclosed where
"Kallugutte" is located in their property, in order to reach the
property of the plaintiffs. When such material is not found and
when there is no alternative road to access the property of the
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
HC-KAR
plaintiffs and even Trial Court also in paragraph No.18
extracted the admission regarding causing of obstruction in
respect of the property of the plaintiffs, since he says that he
will not allow the plaintiffs to use the property which belongs to
him and the same is discussed in paragraph No.19.
10. The First Appellate Court also in detail discussed the
admission on the part of D.W.1, particularly in paragraph
No.16, wherein he categorically admits that in Survey No.158/2
pathway measuring 20 feet x 200 feet has been left to reach
the land of the plaintiffs. When such admission is given and
also taken note of contents of Ex.P1/Ex.D5 in paragraph No.21
of the judgment of the First Appellate Court. When such
reasoning is given and photographs are also produced and
when there is no specific mention as to location of "Kallugutte"
portion in Ex.P1 and defendants have also not disclosed in
Survey No.158/2 where exactly the "Kallugutte" is located and
all these materials are considered by both the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court. When such being the
consideration made with regard to question of fact and question
of law by the Trial Court regarding easementary right which the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25798
HC-KAR
plaintiffs is entitled and found that there was obstruction
caused by the defendants for usage of the said pathway, the
Trial Court rightly granted the relief of easementary right in
favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, I do not find any error
committed by the Trial Court in granting the relief of
easementary right and confirmation of the same by the First
Appellate Court considering both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record. No grounds to admit and frame
substantial question of law, since no perversity in the findings
of both the Courts.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
