Permanent injunction upheld due to established rightful access by the plaintiff, despite the defendant's claims of obstructing the public road.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri A.C. Chethan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Muralidhar P., for the respondent.

2. The defendant is the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree of injunction passed in O.S. No.569/2011, confirmed in R.A.No.115/2019.

3. Facts in a nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit for bare injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff, contending that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties which are mentioned in 'A' Schedule and 'B' Schedule, separately, are culled out hereunder for ready reference:

'A' SCHEDULE

Property bearing H.L.No.143, measuring East-West 60 feet, North-South 40 feet, situated at Kothanur village, Kuppahalli Grama Panchayath, nandi Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and bounded on the:

East by :Road

West by :Road

North by :Plaintiff's property

South by :K. Bachappa's vacant Site and house 

'B' SCHEDULE

The road measures 10 feet in width and which leads from North to South, which is developed by the Kuppahalli Grama Panchayath, Chickballapur Taluk situated at Kothanur village, Nandi Hobli, Taluk and bounded as follows:

East by : Plaintiff's 'A' schedule property

West by : Defendant's property

North by : Road

South by : Road

It is her case that she got the suit properties by way of a registered Gift Deed dated 26.11.2010 executed by Smt. Venkatamma. It is her further case that based on the registered Gift Deed, Kuppahalli Grama Panchayat has issued House list number in favour of the plaintiff and after obtaining necessary licence, a house has been constructed in 'A' Schedule property.

It is her specific case that after the 'A' Schedule property, there exists a Road measuring 10 feet from North to South of the suit property which is referred as 'B' Schedule property. The said Road is belonging to Panchayat measuring 10 feet which is developed by the Panchayat by pitching stone slabs and it is the only Road available for the plaintiff for her ingress and egress.

It is also her specific case that the defendant, without there being any right, title or interest, has closed the Road by fixing the stone slabs and also tethering the cattle in the middle of the Road which was questioned by the plaintiff by complaining to the Secretary of Kuppahalli Grama Panchayat on 04.11.2011. The Secretary of the said Grama Panchayat, though visited the spot and carried out the inspection and drawn the Mahazar, could not stop the illegal interference by the defendant for the use of 'B' Schedule property, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit.

4. On receipt of suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed a detailed Written Statement, stating that there is no existence of Road at all in between the property of the plaintiff and the defendant and only with an intention to grab the property of the defendant, a false claim has been laid by the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of suit.

5. Said suit, after contest, came to be decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal before the first appellate Court in R.A.No.115/2019.

6. The learned Judge in the first appellate Court, after securing the records and after appreciating the factual and legal aspects of the matter, especially in the light of the admission of the defendant with regard to the veracity of Exhibit P-6 document, dismissed the appeal of the defendant and confirmed the order of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the 'B' Schedule property.

7. Being further aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the present appeal on following grounds:

GROUNDS

- It is submitted that the courts below failed to consider the implication after seeing the boundaries in Ex