Back
V. SRISHANANDA
K. S. Savithri, W/o. K. N. Seetharamayya – Appellant
Versus
Kamalaksha, S/o. M. Angara Gowda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. Srishananda, J.
Heard Sri K. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Aashish Ram, appearing on behalf of Sri Krishnamurthy D., counsel for the respondents.
2. Second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.15/1997, on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC., Sullia, Dakshina Kannada, challenging the order passed in R.A.No.119/2005, dated 02.07.2018, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Sullia, Dakshina Kannada, whereunder the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15/1997 set aside the matter was remitted to the Trial Court.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the second appeal are as under:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that defendant Nos.1 to 4 and other public have got right only as a permissive users in respect of the pathway situated three feet width, running from South to North which is in the plaint schedule property and has got the length of 324 links, touching the Western Boundary line of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property which is situated in Sy.No.162/2B, adjoining the land bearing Sy.No.160 of Kollamogru village and defendants and others have no rights whatsoever to interfere or widen the said pathway w
The court established that a suit filed by an aggrieved property owner does not require conversion into a representative suit under the CPC when the claim is specific to the owner's rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the existence and ownership of the pathway, and the validity of the grant of patta in relation to the pathway.
Consistent recitals in prior sale deeds establish common pathway rights, prevailing over later exclusive claims absent explanation.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering admissions and following proper procedure in admitting additional pleadings and shifting the burden of proof.
Property owners abutting public pathways retain rights of access from all boundary points, protecting against unauthorized constructions infringing these access rights.
The court upheld the principle that long user and agreements can establish common property rights, even in the absence of formal title declarations.
A suit seeking injunctive relief must include a declaration of rights to be valid; otherwise, the relief sought is unsustainable if no such declaration is made.
The failure to join necessary parties in a suit claiming private pathway rights renders it unsustainable and fatal, while the burden of proof for public pathway status lies with the defendants.
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
