Karnataka High Court
Sri Nanjegowda vs Sri T.B. Lakshmanagowda on 15 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40838
RSA No. 1447 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1447 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NANJEGOWDA,
S/O. THIMMARAYAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT DABBEGHATTA VILLAGE,
DABBEGHATTA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 227.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. T.B. LAKSHMANAGOWDA,
S/O. LATE BOREGOWDA,
Digitally signed by
DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.1268/1,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2ND MAIN ROAD, KHB COLONY,
TIPTUR TOWN, TIPTUR,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.31/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT TURUVEKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40838
RSA No. 1447 of 2024
HC-KAR
20.01.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.349/2018 ON THE FILE OF
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TURUVEKERE.
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 appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the judgment of
the Trial Court granting easementary right in favour of the
plaintiff and the same is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.349/2018 while seeking the relief of easementary right,
it is specifically pleaded that in between the house and coconut
shed, 40 feet vacant space and after the shed upto the
property of the plaintiff, the defendant is having cultivable land.
Since, from the time of his father, the plaintiff is passing
through the property of the defendant in the northern side to
reach his land and the same has been used as pathway which
runs east to west, which is the suit schedule property. There is
a PWD road towards west of the defendant property which runs
NC: 2025:KHC:40838
HC-KAR
north-south from Dabbeghatt to Kadaballi. The said ABCD
pathway is shown in the plaint rough sketch. Since from the
time of the plaintiff's and the defendant's father, the same has
been used by the plaintiff without any interruption, openly
hostilely, feasibly more than 25 years to the knowledge of the
defendant and other adjacent owners of the lands. The plaintiff
gain access to his property which is situated towards east of
the defendant property from the said PWD road through the
property of the defendant ABCD pathway as shown in the plaint
rough sketch. Except the said pathway, there is no other
alternative road to reach his property. The said road is
absolute necessity for the plaintiff for enjoyment of his
property. The plaintiff has acquired ABCD pathway by way of
prescriptive right and also by way of easement of necessity.
Now the defendant is trying to obstruct the using of said
pathway and hence filed the suit.
4. In the suit, summons was issued to the defendant
and the defendant appeared through his counsel, but did not
file any written statement to contest the case. Hence, the
plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the
documents at Exs.P.1 to 4 and also examined one witness as
NC: 2025:KHC:40838
HC-KAR
P.W.2. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the
plaintiff, formulated the points whether the plaintiff proves that
there is existence of ABCD pathway as per plaint rough sketch
and the same is used by the plaintiff to reach his property and
whether the defendant is interfering. Having considered both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly
RTC extracts as well as oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the
Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is no any other
alternative way to reach the property of the plaintiff. In
paragraph No.10 in detail discussed the same and also taken
note of the plaint rough sketch, which clearly mentioned that
towards northern side of the defendant property he has shown
the road to his property. On the other hand, though the
defendant appeared through his counsel, but he did not file any
written statement to contest the matter. Hence, it is clear that
the defendant had the knowledge of filing of the suit and did
not object for the pathway of ABCD, which is shown in the
rough sketch and hence the Trial Court granted the relief.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in 2022, though the judgment
NC: 2025:KHC:40838
HC-KAR
of the Trial Court was passed in 2020 itself. Though there was
a delay, the First Appellate Court taken note of the delay aspect
as well as merits of the case by framing points for consideration
in respect of delay i.e., point No.1 and with regard to the
sketch and reasoning of the Trial Court, point No.2 and point
No.3 whether it requires interference of the Court. The First
Appellate Court having considered the delay aspect is
concerned, in paragraph No.18, taken note of that the
judgment of the Trial Court was passed on 20.01.2020 and also
taken note of that though it is pleaded that immediately after
the judgment of the Trial Court was passed, Covid period was
prevailing, but Covid lockdown was lifted in the year 2021 and
appeal is filed in 2022 and hence comes to the conclusion while
answering point No.1 that delay has not been properly
explained. Though the document was placed before the Court
with regard to the health condition is concerned i.e., Ex.A.2,
the same is of the year 2023, but the appeal was instituted in
the year 2022 and hence did not accept the same. The First
Appellate Court also taken note of the pleadings of the plaintiff
with regard to existence of ABCD pathway, which is shown in
the rough sketch and also taken note of when the defendant
NC: 2025:KHC:40838
HC-KAR
has not contested the suit by filing his written statement and
the fact that suit was filed in 2018 and the same was disposed
of in 2020, the same is not resisted.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that an opportunity may be given. The
question of giving of an opportunity on the whims and fancies
of the appellant does not arise. When he was having sufficient
time and when the summons was served and when he was
represented through counsel, he did not file any written
statement and not contested the matter and even the appeal
was filed in 2022 after the institution of suit in the year 2018
after 4 years. The pleadings of the plaintiff remained
unchallenged and the same is considered by the First Appellate
Court when the argument was addressed with regard to point
Nos.2 and 3 in paragraph No.35 of the First Appellate Court
judgment. The appellant did not challenge the pleadings of the
plaintiff with regard to the existence of pathway i.e., ABCD
road, which leads to the property of the plaintiff and the rough
sketch clearly discloses that the property of the defendant is
abutting the property of PWD road. In order to access the
NC: 2025:KHC:40838
HC-KAR
property of the plaintiff, only the pathway ABCD is the
easementary right to go to the property of the plaintiff. When
such being the case, I do not find any force in the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant and nothing is placed on
record before this Court as well as the First Appellate Court to
substantiate the contention of the appellant that the plaintiff is
having an alternative access to ingress and egress the property
of the plaintiff. When such being the case, I do not find any
ground to admit the second 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
