Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
C.M. JOSHI
M. Manjunath S/o. Thippeswamy – Appellant
Versus
Siddaiana Kote Thippanna, S/o. Rudrappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. right of easement of necessity (Para 4 , 5 , 19 , 20) |
| 2. existence of an alternative road (Para 6 , 15 , 18 , 21) |
| 3. appellate court's duty to evaluate evidence (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. judgment reversal standards (Para 24 , 26 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
C M JOSHI, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. None appears for the respondent.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment in R.A.No.2/2003 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kudligi dated 01.09.2008, which reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff is before this Court in appeal.
4. It is the contention of the appellant that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.247 on the eastern side and the defendant is the owner of the said survey number on the western side. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the western side of the property purchased by the defendant, there is a north south National Highway and on the northern side of the National Highway there is a Village Hosahalli and on the southern side on the West of the National Highway a village Hulikeri is situated. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and his father and brother were o
The existence of an easement of necessity can be asserted if no alternative access exists, obligating the defendant to allow passage through their property.
Easementary rights – Right to way – Right of prescription is for continuous use from more than 20 years.
The court determined that easementary rights granted in a sale deed are valid and enforceable, overruling lower court findings based on misinterpretation of evidence.
Easement rights can be established based on necessity even if prescriptive rights are not proved, provided there is evidence of long-standing usage.
To establish an easement of necessity, there must be common ownership and impossibility of enjoyment of one tenement without the other; mere lack of alternative access is insufficient.
The court affirmed that the plaintiffs possess a right of easement of necessity over a cart track essential for accessing their agricultural lands, with no evidence of alternative routes.
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 substantiated by clear evidence of continuous use, and title documents play a crucial role in determining such rights.
The limitations of interference under Sec. 100 of CPC and the requirement of substantial question of law for second appeal.
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
