Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S. Kamal
Ningappa S/O. Basappa Barki – Appellant
Versus
Yashavantappa, S/O. Melappa Tuvar @ Goddanavar – Respondent
ORDER :
M.G.S. Kamal, J.
This appeal is by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2015 passed in OS No.432/2011 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC Court, Ranebennur (for short ‘Trial Court’) which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 12.01.2018 passed in RA No.88/2015 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) by which suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. The above suit in OS No.432/2011 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of his easementary right over the ‘suit way’ having width of 10 ft., and length of 200 mtrs., which is described in hand sketch annexed to the plaint as ‘GHEF’; and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful enjoyment of the ‘suit way’ by the plaintiff to reach his land situated towards eastern side of the lands of defendants.
3. Case of the plaintiff is that, he is the owner of the land bearing RS No.27/2A measuring 6 acres 17 guntas situated at Kotihala village which is described in the hand sketch as ‘ABCD’. That the land bearing RS No.28/1 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas, w
Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an easementary right over the claimed suit way, leading to dismissal of the suit.
Easement by prescription requires proof of continuous use for the statutory period; mere permissive use does not establish a right.
Prescriptive easement requires proof of uninterrupted use for 20 years; unclear evidence can lead to dismissal of claims.
The right of easement by prescription requires proof of continuous use, which was established in this case despite the appellant's objections.
The prescriptive right to an easement requires uninterrupted, open user of the pathway, not existing under consent, corroborated by the surrounding facts and circumstances.
Establishment of easement rights requires explicit documentation, and mere permissive rights do not confer legal easements; plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.
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
