Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G. Uma, J.
K.N. Basappa – Appellant
Versus
B. Nagendrappa – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 2209 of 2010 (DEC/INJ)
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Easementary Rights - Property Dispute - Sec. 100 of CPC - The court dismissed the suit seeking declaration of easementary rights to the cart track as perfected by prescription. The plaintiff claimed to have perfected the right over the cart track by prescription and sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The courts held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the cart track and the right of prescription. The High Court, in its decision, emphasized the limitations of interference under Sec. 100 of CPC and upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of easementary rights to a cart track over the defendants' land, claiming to have perfected the right by prescription. The courts dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the cart track and the right of prescription.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit and the appeal, holding that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of the cart track or the right of prescription. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the cart track, the plaintiff's right of prescription, interference by the defendants, and the availability of alternative routes to reach the plaintiff's land.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the cart track and the right of prescription, and did not claim easement of necessity. The High Court emphasized the limitations of interference under Sec. 100 of CPC and upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were confirmed.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The appellants - plaintiffs have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 7/2/2008 passed in OS No.153 of 1999 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Harapanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs with costs, refusing to grant declaration of easementary rights to the cart track as perfected their right by prescription, which was confirmed vide judgment dtd. 5/10/2010 passed in RA No.59 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Harapanahalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity), by dismissing the appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the original plaintiff K N Basappa filed OS No.153 of 1999 against defendant Nos.1 to 3 for declaration that he perfected the right over the cart track shown in the suit sketch as A, B and C, over the land bearing Sy.Nos.339-A, B and C belonging to the defendants, for the purpose of reaching his land both by cart and tractor and to restrain the defendants and their men etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's usage of the said cart track, by granting permanent injunction.
4. It is contended by the plaintiff that he is the lawful owner in enjoyment of Sy.No.337 measuring 1.49 acres, as he purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 05 03.1992. In fact, the plaintiff has purchased the said land about 25 years back for a sum of Rs.5, 000.00. Since the land was Inam land, he could not purchase it under the registered sale deed. After conferment of occupancy rights, the vendor Patil Parameshwaragoud executed the registered sale deed only on 5/3/1992. The khata was mutated in the name of the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question.
5. It is contended that defendant No.3 is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.339-A and B and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.339-C. The lands belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants abut each other. The plaintiff and his predecessor in title were using the cart track marked as A, B and C in red color in the sketch, to reach his land. There was no interference for the use of the cart track. Thus, the plaintiff perfected his right of easement by prescription and the defendants are not having any right, title or interest to interfere with the same. It is also stated that without this cart track, the plaintiff cannot enter his land as the land belonging to the plaintiff is surrounded by a stream on all the three sides which is more than 20 feet in depth. To evidence the same, the plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the village map.
6. The plaintiff contended that the defendants started obstructing the usage of the cart track during 1997. Plaintiff approached the Tahsildar and obtained an order dtd. 6/12/1997 against the defendants not to interfere with the same. It is stated that the said cart track is mentioned in the sale deed that is executed in favour of the plaintiff. On 18/9/1999, when the plaintiff was taking his cart through Sy.Nos.339-A, B and C to reach his land, the defendants unlawfully interfered with the usage of the said cart track. Therefore, the plaintiff approached the Court for declaring his right of easement and for permanent injunction.
7. On service of notice, defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the contention taken by the plaintiff. However, it is admitted that the plaintiff purchased 1.49 acres of land in Sy.No.337 under the registered sale deed. It is denied that the plaintiff purchased the said property under 25 years ago or perfected his right by way of prescription on any cart track. It is specifically contended that the defendants are the owners of the land bearing Sy.Nos.337 and 339 of Anajigere village and the plaintiff can reach his land
The limitations of interference under Sec. 100 of CPC and the requirement of substantial question of law for second appeal.
The court determined that easementary rights granted in a sale deed are valid and enforceable, overruling lower court findings based on misinterpretation of evidence.
The courts upheld the right of the plaintiffs to use the cart track as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, perfected by prescription and necessity.
Easement rights can be established based on necessity even if prescriptive rights are not proved, provided there is evidence of long-standing usage.
The court affirmed that the plaintiffs possess a right of easement of necessity over a cart track essential for accessing their agricultural lands, with no evidence of alternative routes.
A prescriptive easement right is established through clear evidence of continuous, long-standing usage by the claimant and their predecessors, documented in historical title deeds, unaffected by the ....
The right to establish an easement by prescription requires uninterrupted use for twenty years, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
