Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAJESH RAI K.
Shambhavi, W/o. Late Sesappa Hindu – Appellant
Versus
Diocese Of Mangalore, Represented By Bishop Rev Dr. Aloysius P D'souza, Represented By His Duly Constituted Attorney Rev Fr. Clifford D'souza, S/o. Late Ligoury D’Souza – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH RAI K., J.
1. This is defendant’s second appeal.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff has got right of 12 feet wide road way to reach the suit schedule property from main road through the property of the defendant comprised in Sy.No.98/18 shown as 'RRR' in the annexed plaint plan in red colour by way of easement (for brevity, "RRR road") and also for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from in any way blocking or constructing or interfering with or reducing the width or in any way obstructing the user of said road to reach the suit schedule property from the public road.
3. According to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. She purchased the same vide Sale Deed dated 04.11.1938. The schedule property contains a school building which was constructed by the vendor's of the plaintiff. After purchase, she continued to run the school. The said school is known as 'St.Joseph's Higher Primary School having classes from I to VII standard. The suit schedule property is situated at about 150 feet away from the main public road. The said public road is
The court affirmed the plaintiff’s easementary right to access her property via the RRR road, rejecting claims of res judicata and procedural deficiencies from the defendant.
A plaintiff can seek a temporary injunction to protect an easementary right even if a formal declaration of that right has not been made, provided they can demonstrate a prima facie case and the abse....
The court established that an easementary right can be acquired through long-term, uninterrupted use, even if the specific phrase 'as of right' is not explicitly stated in the pleadings, provided the....
A valid easement of necessity was established, overriding lower court rulings that misinterpreted evidence concerning property access rights.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of an easementary right based on continuous usage and the partition deed, allowing for the grant of perpetual injunction even in....
Easementary rights must be clearly established through evidence of grant or necessity, and a plaintiff must seek a declaration of such rights to challenge property alienation.
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for a right to passage, as an alternative route was provided and the land was leased to developers.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their right to the property, which they failed to do.
The plaintiff must demonstrate ownership or lawful possession to maintain a suit for permanent injunction; lack thereof results in dismissal.
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
