A plaintiff claiming a right of easement must demonstrate continuous, uninterrupted use for the statutory period to establish the claim, as per the Easements Act, 1882.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015, passed in R.A.No.70/2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondent was the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration, to declare that the plaintiff has a right of easement of necessity to ‘C’ schedule road running over the defendants property to reach ‘A’ schedule property of the plaintiff, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from closing the existing ‘C’ schedule road by putting fence or constructing any compound wall or permanent structure by interfering with the peaceful use of ‘C’ schedule property by the plaintiff to reach his ‘A’ schedule property, either by themselves, their agents, servants, officials, subordinates etc.

3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the coconut garden property bearing Sy.No.45/2 measuring 2 acres 15½ guntas situated at Mallappanahally village, Kadur Taluk, which is fully described in plaint ‘A’ schedule. The khata of the ‘A’ schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff, and he is paying kandayam to the Government regularly. The plaintiff had acquired the suit ‘A’ schedule property under a partition effected between himself, and his siblings. Defendant No.1 has property in Sy.No.6, measuring 1 acre 3 guntas in Haruvanahalli village. Previously, the said land was called as ‘Gondi Topu’. The plaintiff and his family members are reaching their lands by using suit ‘B’ schedule road. It is contended that, Sy.No.45/2 at schedule ‘A’ has a total extent measuring 7 acres and 24 guntas, including a kharab of 0.33 guntas, among them. ‘A’ schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff, and the remaining property in the ‘A’ schedule property has been allotted to the plaintiff’s brothers. In ‘A’ schedule property, 1 acre of the land has been covered, towards east by: APMC compound, Channel and the remaining property in suit ‘A’ schedule property, West by: suit ‘B’ schedule property, North by: APMC compound and South by: Channel, and then the property belongs to Anjinappa. The plaintiff is not having any other way except suit ‘B’ schedule property to reach his land and has been using the property for more than 60 years. Hence, the plaintiff has a right to make use of ‘B’ schedule property to reach ‘A’ schedule property from ‘B’ schedule road.

3.2. It is contended that defendant No.1 has khata, but has no right to obstruct or interfere with the peaceful use of the said road, and he has no right to close the said road. The defendants are misusing their official power, and attempting to close the said road by creating a compound wall. The act of defendant No.1 is illegal. It is contended that the plaintiff requested defendant No.1 not to close the road, and to allow him to make use of ‘C’ schedule road, but defendant No.1 refused and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, by denying the right of way. The plaintiff got issued a notice under Section 80 of the CPC. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.3. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff’s land, and place are