Property access rights must be established through documentation; claims without evidence are insufficient. The court upheld the trial court's ruling that the road remains private.

JUDGMENT :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 25103/2011, passed by the LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.25103/2011.

2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial court.

3. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property bearing BBMP Corporation No.8. They claim to have acquired the Schedule A property under a registered sale deed dated 31.07.2004, executed by one Narain Dass Bodaram and others, represented by defendant No.1, Sri R. Shekar. The plaintiffs specifically assert that defendant No.1 had negotiated the sale transaction, having derived interest in a larger extent of land originally owned by the vendor, measuring approximately 1,03,455 square feet. In respect of Schedule A property, the plaintiffs contend that they have developed two apartment complexes one measuring 11,435 square feet and another measuring 44,020 square feet under the name and style of “GEM REGENCY,” which correspond to item Nos. 1 and 2 of the Schedule B property described in the sale deed. The plaintiffs, who are professional civil engineers by occupation and actively engaged in the field of designing, construction, and sale of residential apartments, have constructed two blocks of apartments equipped with modern facilities and amenities for the benefit of the residents.

4. The present suit is instituted seeking a declaration that the Schedule B property, described as a private road abutting and lying to the southern side of the Schedule A property, constitutes common property jointly owned and enjoyed by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right of access through the Schedule B property, demarcated as ABCDE in the sketch annexed to the plaint. The plaintiffs assert that the said road has always been treated and used as a common access route, and that both parties have equal rights to its use. They further contend that Schedule B property is to be treated as a common area, and as such, the defendants cannot claim exclusive ownership or restrict access. Alleging that the defendants have sought to interfere with and deny the plaintiffs’ right to use the said private road, the plaintiffs claim to have been constrained to approach the Court seeking the aforesaid declaratory and injunctive reliefs.

5. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, wherein they have categorically denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants, while strongly refuting the plaintiffs' claims, contend that they are the exclusive owners of the Schedule B property, which they describe as a private road specifically meant to provide access to the apartment complex developed by them, prior in time to the sale of Schedule A property in favour of the plaintiffs. They deny that Schedule B property is a common area intended for joint use by both parties.

6. The defendants further dispute the plaintiffs’ assertion that there was a mutual understanding to construct a common security room and install a gate at the entrance of the said private road, referred to as point AE in the rough sketch annexed to the plaint. It is specifically pleaded that Schedule B property, being a private road, is located to the western side of the plaintiffs’ Schedule A property and is meant ex