Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ashok S.Kinagi
Seetharama Bhat, S/o Venkateshwara Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Parameshwari Since Dead Leelavathi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs claim a right to draw water as easement. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 8) |
| 2. trial court dismissed the suit based on claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. evidence regarding water usage was examined. (Para 12 , 20 , 26) |
| 4. errors in appellate court’s judgment addressed. (Para 15 , 16 , 29 , 36) |
| 5. final decision restored trial court’s ruling. (Para 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Ashok S.Kinagi, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.123/2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwala, D.K. District.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.1, respondents No.1 to 8 were the plaintiffs and respondent No.9 was defendant No.2.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for declaration that they are entitled to take water in the land in Sy.No.52/4 of Alike village from the pond marked as ‘P’ in the sketch for domestic purposes and also an easement and prohibition and also for a consequential relief of prohibitory injunction restraining th
Easementary rights must be demonstrated through established, long-term use; failure to substantiate these claims invalidates requests for declaratory relief.
The plaintiff's claim of easementary right was not maintainable as he failed to seek the relief of declaration despite the denial of his right by the defendants.
Easementary rights require unequivocal evidence of long-standing use; customary rights to fetch water cannot be presumed without documented proof.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of specific pleading and evidence to establish easementary rights, the burden of proof in establishing such rights, and the court's r....
When registered sale deeds grant equal rights to a common well, equity cannot modify those rights or grant disproportionate declaratory relief.
The court affirmed the customary easementary rights of the plaintiff to draw water through the Suit Property, as supported by statutory provisions and lack of evidence from defendants to refute this ....
The court affirmed the plaintiff's customary easementary rights to draw water through the Suit Property, rejecting the defendants' claims of obstruction.
Point of Law : Easementary right – The right of every owner of upper land that water naturally rising, or falling on such land, and not passing in defined channels, shall be allowed by the owner of a....
The plaintiff, as the manager of the family, was entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of her sons, and the defendants' interference with the plaintiff's right of enjoyment....
The plaintiff, as the manager of the family, was entitled to maintain the suit for permanent injunction on behalf of her sons, and the defendants' interference with the plaintiff's right of enjoyment....
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
