IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAJESH RAI K.
B. Sathish Kumar S/o Angara Shriyan – Appellant
Versus
Prema S. Kulal W/o Shankar Kulal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH RAI K., J.
1. This is plaintiff's second appeal.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants, their men and servants from blocking the reserved '12 feet RRR road' towards the southern side of the A schedule property.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 5 cents in Sy.No.216/3 situated at Surathkal Village, Mangaluru, (for brevity "the suit 'A' schedule property") and the same was purchased by plaintiff vide Sale Deed dated 01.08.2005 from Prema S Kullal - defendant No.1. Since there was no approach road to ingress and egress to the 'A' schedule property, defendant No.1, the vendor of plaintiff has specifically reserved 12 feet road towards the southern side of the 'A' schedule property which runs east to west which is clearly mentioned in clause No.8 of the said Sale Deed. However, on the eastern and southern side of the 'A' schedule property, the property of defendant No.1 is situated. Therefore, the aforesaid 12 feet width reserved RRR road is not only grant of way but also an easement of necessity and the plaintiff and his family members are using the

A valid easement of necessity was established, overriding lower court rulings that misinterpreted evidence concerning property access rights.
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....
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 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....
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.
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....
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.
The right to use a path for accessing one's property can be established through long-term use and relevant property documents, regardless of explicit claims under the Easement Act.
Easement rights conveyed through property transfers can include implied grants, and a defendant cannot restrict access without legal rights to do so.
Implied easement rights for property use transfer automatically, barring explicit contradictory intentions in property deeds.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.