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.

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 were allotted to their share as per decree passed in O.S.No.312/1974. The vendor of the plaintiff had absolute right over the suit schedule property and enjoyment of the suit road. The plaintiff and the others were using the said cart road to transport the agricultural products. The said cart road is necessary for the plaintiff to approach his land. The defendants are intentionally trying to obstruct the plaintiff to use and enjoy the suit cart road. The defendants have no right to obstruct the plaintiff from using the said cart road. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, except admitting the partition of their family properties in O.S.No.312/1974, it is contended that there is no way or road as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. The plaintiff is trying to create a new road in land Sy.Nos.18/1A and 18/B. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property shown as ABCD is the road and they are using the said road to ingress and egress and except ABCD road, she has no alternative road to go to her land?

2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are causing obstruction to her to use the said road?

3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the defendants, Thimmakka and Lakshmamma?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?

5) What order or decree?

3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3, and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DW.2 and DW.3, and marked one document as Ex.D1.

3.4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative, issue No.3 in the negative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 22.03.2013. It was declared that there is pathway on the western side bund is land Sy.No.18/1A and 18/1B and plaintiff has every right to use and enjoyment of said pathway to approach her land and form house and the defen