Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Bommalingaiah, S/o Late Shivanna – Appellant
Versus
Sadashivappa, S/o Bommalingaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute pertains to easement access along a pathway. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims regarding evidence and pathway necessity raised by defendant. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. admissions by witnesses affirm existence of pathway. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. easement established due to lack of proof for alternative access. (Para 15 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri. Jeevan Kumar B.S., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. M.B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Second appeal is by the defendant who suffered an order of decree of declaration and injunction in O.S.No.172/2008 in respect of the property which is the in landed property situated in Aralikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, in Sy.No.30/1 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas and Sy.No.30/1 measuring 0.15 guntas and both items are situated in common boundary bounded on East by : Land of Prasanna Kumar, West by : Halla, North By: Madihalli and South by: land of the plaintiff, marked in the Sketch as 'C', 'D' and 'E'.
3. The validity of the judgment and decree passed in the suit was questioned in First Appeal before the Civil Judge (Senior Division, Turuvekere), in R.A.No.18/2014.
4. Learned Judge in the Firs
Easements require clear evidence of necessity; failure to establish alternative routes validates the easement claim.
Entitlement to easement by necessity due to property fragmentation and absence of alternative pathways.
Easement rights under the Indian Easements Act require proof of continuous use and previous single ownership; failure to establish these elements results in dismissal of claims.
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.
To establish an easement of necessity, there must be common ownership and impossibility of enjoyment of one tenement without the other; mere lack of alternative access is insufficient.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the evidence and the application of the legal principles, including the provisions of the Easement Act, 1882, to determine....
Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an easementary right over the claimed suit way, leading to dismissal of the suit.
Easement of necessity cannot be based upon a non-existing alternative path.
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
