Personal rights to access can be enforced against public property encroachments despite jurisdictional claims. Prior admissions in related cases form essential evidence in determining access rights.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. JOSHI, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.5455/1996 passed by learned IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore and judgment and decree dated 13.08.2009 passed in O.S.No.7557/1994 by learned XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suits for injunction, the defendant No.1 therein are in appeals.

2. The subject matter of the dispute being a 20 feet wide cross road situated in between the property of the plaintiff and that of defendant No.1 in both the suits, these appeals are clubbed and are taken up together though they were tried separately before the trial Court.

3. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. Brief facts of the case in OS No.5455/1996 are as below:

The plaintiff-M.Pankajakshi, is the owner in possession of the residential premises in site No.20/3 of III Cross, Vivekananda Nagar, Bengaluru. Earlier, the said site was numbered as Site No.9 and later, it was numbered as site No.28. The layout was formed in Sy.No.82/2 of Lingarajpuram. The plaintiff purchased the site under Sale Deed dated 22.06.1981 and later, she got a building plan sanctioned and constructed a house in the same. The plaintiff contends that there is 20 feet wide cross road (hereinafter referred to as 'suit road' for short) on the western side of her site, which gives her access to the third main road of the said area. She claims that it is the only road to approach her house and is used for ingress and egress to her house.

a) It is the case of the plaintiff - M.Pankajakshi that one Mohamed Akbar was the owner of site Nos.28 and 47, which were across the site of the plaintiff, situated on the western side of the 20 feet wide cross road. He attempted to encroach upon suit road in the year 1982 and tried to build a compound wall. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.10181/1982 against Mohamed Akbar and the Municipal Corporation. After contest, the said suit came to be decreed on 01.10.1988 and has become final.

b) The site No.28, which was earlier owned by the said Mohamed Akbar was sold to one Sumathi. In turn, she sold the same to defendant No.1 in O.S.No.5455/1996 i.e., Sri M.Murthy. The said defendant No.1 with a malafide intention of encroaching the suit road, obtained a sanctioned plan and tried to put up construction by dumping building materials. A request to defendant No.2- Corporation went in vain. Therefore, the plaintiff- Pankajakshi filed O.S.No.5455/1996 against the said Murthy seeking permanent injunction.

c) In OS No. 5455/1996 the plaintiff has sought following prayers:

"WHEREFORE, she prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment & decree by granting permanent injunction:

i) to restrain the Defendant No.1, his supporters, henchmen etc., from interfering with the peaceful use and enjoyment of the 20 feet Cross Road, by the plaintiff and her family members, by restraining the Defendant No.1 from encroaching into the suit schedule property by putting up any structure;

ii) to direct the Defendant No.2 not to sanction the plan till the disposal of this suit;

iii) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant;

iv) to award cost of this suit, in the interest of justice and equity."

d) Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.7557/1994- P.Keshavan had purchased the site No.47 from Mohamed Akbar during pendency of O.S.No.10181/1982. The said P.Keshavan started repeating the illegal activities of Mohamed Akbar and despite the protest, he was able to