Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1728
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. NATARAJAN, J.
Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o. Jagadishwaraiah and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Anusuya, W/o. Chikkahanumantha Raju and Ors. – Respondents
Regular First Appeal No.408 of 2015 (DEC/INJ)
Decided On : 25-04-2025
For the Appellants :Sri. Sunil S. Rao, Advocate for Sri. T. Sheshagiri Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sri. K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, Advocate, Sri. Srinivas Bhat, Advocate.
Plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a public road and had alternative access, justifying the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 1, Section 96 - Appeal against dismissal of suit - Plaintiffs sought declaration of property as road and removal of obstruction - Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding no public road exists - Evidence showed plaintiffs had alternative access - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 1, 22, 23)
(B) Locus Standi - Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate legal standing to pursue the suit after selling property during proceedings. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that a property is a public road and sought removal of a compound wall obstructing access. The defendants contended the property was sold to them and not a public road.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs did not prove the property was a public road and had alternative access to their property.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs proved the existence of a public road and if the trial court's judgment warranted interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not establish that the property was a public road and had alternative routes for access, thus the trial court's dismissal was justified.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K. NATARAJAN, J.
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment of dismissal of the suit in OS No.4827/2006 dated 12.12.2014 on the file of XXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions judge, Bangalore.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The appellant No.1 was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants before the Trial Court and the ranks of the parties are retained for convenience.
4. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial court is that they have filed the suit for declaration to declare that item No.2 of suit schedule property is road and to direct the defendants to remove the obstruction i.e. the compound wall put up by the defendants, which is shown as ABCD in the sketch and also for permanent injunction for the plaintiffs, who have ingress and egress.
5. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are having common interest in the subject matter and hence, they have jointly filed the suit. It is alleged that the plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of site No.22 formed in Sy.No.7 and 8 measuring East to West 40 ft., North to South 40 ft, which is described as item No.1 (A) of the schedule, which was acquired by sale deed dated 27.09.2002, purchased from GPA holder one M.M. Patel. The M.M. Patel acquired the title on 09.01.1990. It was the defendant No.3, who sold the schedule property to the plaintiffs as a GPA holder.
6. The plaintiff No.2 has contended that he is the owner of site No.31, measuring 40x40 ft., purchased under the sale deed dated 21.02.2004 executed by defendant No.3 through his Power of Attorney holder, which is described as plaint schedule item 1(B).
7. It is further contended that the defendant No.3 formed 56 sites in Sy.No.7 and 8 of Chikkasandra village. The site Nos.22 and 33 were formed and sold in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.3 sold site Nos.23 and 30 in favour of one Danappa and C.M.Izaz. The Location of the site numbers 22, 23, 30 and 31 can be gathered from layout map.
8. It is further contended that the site Nos. 22, 23, 30 and 31 are corner sites. On the northern side of Sy.No.22 and 31 and to the southern side of site No.23 and 30, there is existence of a road measuring East to West 25 ft, which runs North to South.
9. The defendant No.3 after formation of layout and describing the northern boundary as road, has sold site Nos.22 and 31. Though, the southern boundary of site Nos.23 and 30 is shown as road. Similarly, item No.2 of the plaint schedule property soon after the formation of the layout was vested with the local authority. The defendant No.3 while conveying road, in favour of the first and second defendant assigned the site numbers as 22(A) and 31(A). In fact, there was no site having site Nos.22(A) and 31(A) in the layout map. Defendant No.3 also sold the portion of the road to defendant Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the said defendant Nos.1 and 2 do not acquire right, title or interest over the said property.
10. Defendant nos.1 and 2 closed the road shown as ABCD in the sketch by putting up compound wall on 24.04.2006. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.
11. Defendant No.1 as well as defendant No.2 filed similar written statements contending that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. Defendants have purchased the sites under the sale deeds by paying the consideration and denied the averments that site No.22 and 31 are the corner sites and both side there is a road. It is further contended that even if the item No.2 of the item plaint schedule property is shown as the road in the layout plan, there is no impediment or prohibition for defendant No.3 to convert it as site and assigning the numbers as 22(A) and 31(A). No fault can be found from the act of defendant No.3 and the plaintiffs concealing the facts have filed false suit against them. If, there is any violation of municipal law, they have
