Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Manjamma W/o R. Thimmappa – Appellant
Versus
Ramanna Since Dead by His LRs. Smt. Kenchamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2013 passed in R.A.No.25/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sira.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to declare that he has right to use and enjoyment of pathway situated in Sy.Nos.18/1A and 18/1B to reach her land and permanent injunction regarding the suit schedule property.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. The same was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 30.11.1998. The vendor of the plaintiff also use the suit road to reach their land. After purchasing the suit schedule property, the plaintiff continued to use the suit road to reach her land. The vendor of the plaintiff and defendants belong to same family. It is contended that the suit schedule property and properties of the defendants w
A right of easement may exist if one landowner has no accessible route to their property except through another's land, but the plaintiff must establish the existence of such a pathway.
A claimant must establish exclusive settled possession and document rights to land for relief against interference; admissions impacting access rights must be substantiated.
The court upheld the existence of a right of easement for the defendants over a cart track, affirming prior judgments and applying the principle of res judicata.
The necessity of seeking a declaration of right when claiming a pathway right in a property belonging to another party.
The court upheld the principle that long user and agreements can establish common property rights, even in the absence of formal title declarations.
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.
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....
A valid easement of necessity was established, overriding lower court rulings that misinterpreted evidence concerning property access rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear title and acceptable evidence to support claims of possession and easementary rights.
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
