Karnataka High Court
M Jayaramaiah vs Smt M C Jayakumari on 29 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
RSA No. 2126 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2126 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
M.JAYARAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD
REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS
1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI JAYARAM,
W/O LATE M.JAYARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. PRADEEP NAYAK J.,
S/O LATE M.JAYARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
3. KUM. CHANDINI NAYAK J.,
Digitally signed D/O LATE M.JAYARAMAIAH,
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE
R/AT DYAPASANDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
RSA No. 2126 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
SMT.M.C.JAYAKUMARI
W/O T. SONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
NADAVATI POST - 560 067,
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOVINDA REDDY C.M., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH
ORDER XLII RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 28.07.2023 PASSED IN RA No. 44/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2017 PASSED IN OS No. 275/2008
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MALUR.
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 and learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. The second appeal is filed against the concurrent
findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court. The factual
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that,
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule land and is in
the possession which is bearing Survey No.25/2, measuring 14
acres and 33 guntas situated at K.G.Hanumantapura Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk. Plaintiff purchased the said land
from one Smt. Vasantha Kumari under the registered sale deed
dated 25.01.2006. Plaintiff is also having some property
adjacent to the property in Survey No.25/2. The southern
boundary of the property in Survey No.25/2 is upto the limit of
Survey No.75 of Mittiganahalli Village. In the said Survey
No.75, there is a road from east to west direction. The said
road is in existence from immemorial time and it is a
government road. A suit schedule road is the only road for the
plaintiff to approach and to reach his land from the aforesaid
main road. There is no other alternative road to the plaintiff's
property. The suit schedule road is carved out in Survey No.75
of the Mittiganahalli Village. The plaintiff's vendor was using
the said road which is in the suit schedule property to reach
their land from the main road. From the date of purchase, the
plaintiff is also using the suit schedule land to reach her
property. In the year 1993, one Guttappa and defendant
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
herein had given application to the government to classify the
existing road in the said 7 guntas of land as road officially. The
defendant was granted an extent of 2 acres 4 guntas of land in
Survey No.75 of Mittiganahalli Village. Later, it was renumbered
as new Survey No.102. The land situated on the eastern side
of the suit land in Survey No.102 belongs to the plaintiff and
the land on the western side of the scheduled property belongs
to Guttappa in Survey No.97. The grant certificate which is
issued in favour of Guttappa clearly shows the existence of the
suit scheduled property and further, the plaintiff contended that
the grantee shall not claim any right, possession and interest
over the same and grantee shall not obstruct the ingress and
egress of the adjacent land owners. The suit schedule road is
in existence from many decades, but it is regularised in the
year 1993. The revenue documents also disclose the existence
of the suit schedule road. The Government of Karnataka
notified and declared that the suit schedule property is a road.
The Survey Authorities and Tahsildar visited the spot and
demarcated the suit schedule property as road. Such being the
case, defendant is having no absolute right and possession over
the suit road. Plaintiff is also having right of easement in the
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
suit schedule property. Defendant with an intention to grab
that road, he has made several attempts to block the same and
caused inconvenience to the users of the easement and also
obstructed the plaintiff's right of easement over the suit
schedule road and hence, she filed the suit.
3. After the issuance of the suit summons, defendant
appeared and filed a written statement. He contended that 2
acres 8 guntas of land in Survey No.75 - New Survey No.102 is
the self-acquired property of the defendant and the same is
granted by the government. The revenue records are standing
in his name and he is paying tax. The suit schedule property is
situated on the western side of their property and the
defendant is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same
since 50 years without any disturbance from anybody. Plaintiff
has built up the records by using her influence to form the road
in the suit schedule property. Hence, defendant filed
O.S.No.240/2007 against the government. Defendant also filed
an application before the concerned authorities to confirm his
unauthorised occupation in respect of the land situated on the
western side of his property. Further, defendant contended that
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
he has dumped 200 loads of mud in the suit schedule road.
The same was removed by the plaintiff by using her influence.
4. In the additional written statement, defendant also
contented that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Kolar, by reserving 7 guntas of land in Survey No.75 to form a
road is stayed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No.371/2009 and the said stay order is in force. The suit
schedule property is within Survey No.102, measuring 2 acres
8 guntas of land and prays the Court to dismiss the suit. The
parties are allowed to lead their evidence. The General Power
of Attorney holder of the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and
the also examined two witnesses and produced documents,
which are marked as Exs.P1 to P5. The General Power of
Attorney holder of the defendant is examined DW.1 and
produced 87 documents, marked as Exs.D.1 to D.87.
5. The trial Court having considered particularly the
documents which have been relied upon by the plaintiff, in
paragraph No.15 comes to the conclusion that recitals of
Ex.P.45 clearly shows that the suit schedule property is situated
on the western side of new Survey No.102, which belongs to
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
the defendant. It is also true that the suit schedule property is
situated towards the western side of 34 guntas of land in block
No.1 in Survey No.75 of Mittiganahalli Village, is allotted to
Guttappa, S/o.Ramaiah. The boundaries stated in Ex.P.14 i.e.,
grant certificate issued in favour of Guttappa, son of Ramaiah
and Ex.P.45 i.e., sketch corroborates with each other. The
boundaries stated in Ex.P.6 i.e., sketch prepared by the Taluk
Survey at Survey No.75, suit schedule road, which is shown in
dotted line and Ex.P.8, which is RTC and Ex.P.14 i.e., grant
certificate issued in favour of Guttappa, all documents clearly
corroborates each other. That above said documents clearly
shows the existence of the suit schedule road as alleged by the
plaintiff.
6. The trial Court also taken note of the answers elicited
from the mouth of DW.1 in the cross-examination at paragraph
No.17, whereby, DW.1 has admitted the land granted to the
Guttappa and its boundaries and also admitted that the plaintiff
has purchased the land in Survey No.25/2 of
K.G.Hanumantapura Village, which is situated on the southern
side of the land in New Survey No.102. However, the trial
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
Court also took note of all the documents in paragraph No.18
and comes to the conclusion that the existence of road is very
clear and plaintiff is having a statutory right to reach his
property and granted the relief.
7. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in
R.A.No.44/2017 and the appellate Court also having considered
the grounds urged by the appellants - defendants before the
appellate Court, reassessed both oral and documentary
evidence and particularly, taken note of the grant certificate at
Ex.P.14 and the same is discussed in paragraph No.29 and also
taken note of the recitals at Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.6. At paragraph
Nos.30 and 31 has taken note of the document Ex.P.41, which
is the report dated 04.12.2008, given by the Deputy
Commissioner, Kolar to the Secretary Revenue Department, the
Government of Karnataka, wherein, 7 guntas of land in Survey
No.75 of Mittiaganahalli Village is reserved for the purpose of
forming road. The appellate Court having reassessed the
material on record taken note of admission on the part of DW.1
and discussed the same in paragraph No.35. Having
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
reassessed the evidence available on record, concurred the
judgment of the trial Court.
8. Being aggrieved by the said findings of the trial Court
as well as the appellate Court, the present second appeal is
filed before this Court. The main contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that,
both the Courts have committed an error in not properly
assessing the material on record and that holding that the
plaintiff is entitled for right of easement as per Section 4 of the
Easement Act, when the plaintiff has not proved the prescribed
period to claim such right, when there is no existence of road.
Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the
Courts are not justified in granting the relief, that he is having
an easementary right to reach the land, wherein Survey
No.25/2 and the very approach is erroneous. Hence, this Court
has to admit the second appeal and frame substantive question
of law.
9. Having heard the appellant's learned counsel and also
on perusal of the reasoning of the trial Court, particularly, the
trial Court having considered the case of the plaintiff in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
paragraph No.2 and also the defence of the defendant in the
written statement at paragraph No.6, has taken note of both
grant orders at Exs.P14 and Ex.P.45 and also the recitals in the
document at Ex.P6 and also at paragraph Nos.16 and 17. At
paragraph No.17, the trial Court taken note of the admission on
the part of DW.1 and in paragraph No.6 also discussed in detail
that no other alternative road is available to reach the land of
the plaintiff and also defendant has not lead any evidence to
show that the plaintiff is having any other alternative road to
reach the land in Survey No.25/2.
10. The appellate Court having reassessed the material
taken note of the very grant order at Ex.P14 and also the
report of the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Ex.P41 as well
as the admission on the part of DW1 in the cross examination
that the land was granted to Guttappa, S/o.Ramaiah and its
boundaries and that the plaintiff purchased the above land
which is situated on the southern side of land in New
Sy.No.102. But, she denied the existence of road claimed by
the plaintiff. The material available before the Courts is very
clear that the road is in existence and the grant certificate also
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
discloses the same. Though defendant filed the suit in
O.S.No.113/2009, the application for injunction is dismissed in
the said suit.
11. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
brought to notice of this Court that an appeal is filed before the
Karnataka Land Ttribunal and stay is granted but the same is
pending. When such being the case and the plaintiff
categorically pleaded that she is not having any other
alternative road to reach her land except the said road, which is
in existence in the grant certificate as well as the other revenue
records also, particularly, Ex.P6 as well as Ex.P41, I do not find
any error committed by the trial Court as well as the appellate
Court in coming to such a conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for
the easement right, in the absence of any alternative road to
reach the land of the plaintiff and hence, I do not find any
ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law as
it is not a case for invoking Section 100 of the C.P.C.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43147
HC-KAR
12. In view of the discussions made above, second appeal
is dismissed.
I.A.No.2/2023 is disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
NVJ
