A valid easement of necessity was established, overriding lower court rulings that misinterpreted evidence concerning property access rights.

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 12 feet road without any hindrance from anybody including the defendants.

4. It is further case of the plaintiff that, after the sale of 'A' schedule property, defendant No.1 has sold some portion of remaining land in Sy.No.216/3 to defendant No.2 and at present, defendant No.2 appears to have acquired the portion of the property situated towards the southern side of the aforesaid reserved 12 feet RRR road. On 31.01.2012, defendant No.2 and his men in collusion started to dig trenches by the side of the southern compound wall of the 'A' schedule property to put up compound wall and the same was objected by the plaintiff. Due to his resistance, the defendants stopped their further work. Immediately after that the plaintiff lodged a complaint and the police issued an endorsement and advised to approach the civil court since the same was a civil dispute. Thus, the plaintiff filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from the plaintiff's peaceful use of the said road.

5. Though defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the court through their counsel, defendant No.1 has not filed written statement and only defendant No.2 contested the suit by filing the written statement and denying that the 'A' schedule property was converted and sold to the plaintiff and also denied that there is a way reserved 12 feet road from the beginning as alleged in the plaint. Further it is contended that the property of defendant No.1 was closed by a compound wall. Inspite of knowing this very fact, the plaintiff has filed the suit only with a malafide intention to coerce the defendants and the Sale Deed executed in favour of plaintiff was executed by the GPA holder and he has no authority to grant the said 12 feet road as easement of necessity and thus, there is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit for bare injunction is therefore not maintainable. As such, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of 12 feet road and his right by way of grant and easement of necessity over the disputed road.

7. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, has observed that the plaintiff has filed the suit on the ground that the road runs in the