The appeal cannot be admitted unless a substantial question of law is made out, as per Section 100 of C.P.C.

1. This plaintiff’s second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru in R.A.No.68/2012. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction.

2. Respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the trial Court. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.581/2006 before the III Additional Civil Judge, Mysuru for permanent injunction against the defendants from causing obstructions in plaintiff using road situated on the eastern side of the suit property. Suit schedule property is the house bearing door No.N/1414 new Municipal Door No.657 SYCES quarters, Pheerkhan Street, Nazarbad, Mysuru.

3. Plaintiff contended that her father had purchased the said property from the 3rd defendant under the registered sale deed dated 16.08.1971. She contended that on the Eastern side of the suit property there is a public road belonging to Mysuru City Corporation and defendants 1 and 2 claiming that they have purchased the suit property from 3rd defendant are obstructing her from using the said road. Thus she sought permanent injunction.

4. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and contested the suit. They denied the contention that the property lying on Eastern side of the plaintiff’s property is the public road and she is using that. They contended that they have purchased the property situated on the Eastern side of the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 10.02.2006 and are in absolute possession of the same.

5. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves interference by the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for?

4. What Order or Decree?”

6. Before the trial Court, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 and defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs. D.1 to D.10. On hearing the parties, trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that on the Eastern side of the suit property there is a public road as contended by her.

7. She took up the matter before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru in R.A. No.68/2012. In the said appeal plaintiff filed I.A. No.9 for local inspection of the said property and I.A. Nos.10 and 11 for appointment of Commissioner. The first appellate Court after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment dismissed I.A. Nos. 9, 10, 11 and the appeal holding that the plaintiff’s own document Ex.P.1-the registered sale deed in favour of her father under which she claims title does not reveal existence of the public road on the Eastern side. The first appellate Court further held that the documentary evidence itself shows that there is no road as contended by the plaintiff and there is no ambiguity to elucidate the matter. Therefore, appointment of the Commissioner is not required.

8. Sri Ravi H.K. learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case has to be admitted for the following reasons.

(i) Since the Trial Court did not give sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to lead her evidence and to cross examine DW.1, the plaintiff filed I.A. Nos.9, 10 and 11 to adduce additional evidence and for local inspection through commission and the first appellate court dismissed them.

(ii) The first appellate Court should have allowed those applications and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

(iii) Courts below did not appreciate that as per the Sketch-Ex.P14 a road exists on the Eastern side of the suit property.

9. As against this Sri Rakshith Jois Y.P., learned counsel for the respondents contends that b