Back
2026 Supreme(Kar) 698
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.
Sri D.H. Vasanthappa @ Lakshmana, S/o. Late Sri D.M. Hosanthappa - Petitioner
Versus
Sr. D.R. Girish, S/o. Late Sri D.A. Ramegowda – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13410 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 24-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Easements and Injunctions
Headnote
(B) Easements - Interlocutory Stage - To obtain a temporary injunction based on an easementary right, the party must prima facie establish the nature of the claim, its legal basis, and demonstrate continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted enjoyment. The court's inquiry is confined to whether a credible prima facie right exists and whether refusal of interim protection would result in irreparable prejudice (Paras 7 and 8).
(C) Equitable Relief - Clean Hands Doctrine - A person seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands. Suppression of material facts, such as failure to implead a necessary party or concealing the existence of a prior injunction order granted against the applicant by another court, disentitles the applicant to interim protection (Paras 7 and 9).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking a right of way by easement of necessity over a specific road to access their properties. They sought a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from obstructing the road. The respondents denied the existence of the road and claimed alternative routes were available. It was revealed that a person, not impleaded as a party to the suit, had previously obtained an injunction against the petitioners regarding the same property. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the application for temporary injunction, noting the lack of a prima facie case and the need for a full trial to determine easementary rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was not in their favor. The court highlighted the suppression of the fact that an injunction had already been granted against the petitioners in another suit regarding the property in question and that the necessary party was not impleaded in the present suit.
Issues: Whether the petitioners had established a prima facie case for an easementary right of way to warrant a temporary injunction and whether the non-impleadment of a necessary party and suppression of a prior injunction affected the grant of equitable relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since injunction is an equitable relief, the requirement of "clean hands" is paramount. The failure to implead a party who held a prior order against the petitioner and the failure to prove continuous, uninterrupted use of the way at the interlocutory stage meant no prima facie case was made out. Determining the existence of an easement requires a full-fledged trial and cannot be decided via a mini-trial during interlocutory proceedings.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Petitioners:Sri Pradeep Naik K., Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri Kashinath J.D., Advocate for Smt. Pushpalatha Y., Advocate, Sri Prasanna R., Advocate.
ORDER :
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in M.A.No.3/2024 by the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC at Mudigere, which has confirmed the orders passed in IA No.2 in O.S.No.13/2022 by the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Mudigere dated 28.03.2024, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court.
2. The plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.13/2022 seeking a declaration of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed IA No.2 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the use of the suit schedule ‘B’ road for ingress and egress to Item Nos. 2 to 4 of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the ‘A’ schedule properties belong to the family of the defendants. Now, Item Nos. 1 to 3 of the ‘A’ schedule properties belong to the joint family of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5, and said properties have been acquired in the name of plaintiff No. 1 through a registered Sale Deed dated 24.03.2021. Item No. 4 of the ‘A’ schedule properties belongs to plaintiff No. 6, who has purchased the same under a sale deed dated 07.09.2016. Item Nos. 2 to 4 of the suit schedule ‘A’ properties are plantation lands, and plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 have grown coffee, pepper, jungle wood, etc. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have land in Sy. Nos. 361 and 362, which has been purchased in the names of their wives by registered sale deeds from plaintiff No. 6 and her children. Defendant Nos.1, 2, their family members, sold Item No. 1 of the suit schedule ‘A’ property to plaintiff No. 6 for the formation of a road to reach Item Nos. 2 to 4 of the suit schedule ‘A’ properties, and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are also beneficiaries of the road so formed to reach their properties. Plaintiff No. 6 and her family members have to reach Item Nos. 2 to 4 of the suit schedule ‘A’ properties from the Sakaleshpura-Devavrunda main road, which touches the road in Kharab land in Sy. No. 304 of Devavrunda Village. In the said land, one acre of land belongs to the defendants and it touches the usual road used by the family members of plaintiff No. 6 and the defendants, situated in Sy. No. 308 of Devavrunda Village. Wherein M/S. Githanjali Estate owns 2 acres 33 guntas, defendants have 20 guntas, and plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 have one acre 20 guntas. The said road existing in Sy. No. 308 touches the road formed in Item No. 1 of the suit schedule ‘A’ properties, from which plaintiff No. 6 and her family members have to reach Items No. 2 and 3 and proceed to Item No.4 of the suit schedule ‘A’ properties for cultivation, harvesting, and transporting the crop grown therein. The defendants and their family have to reach to their wetlands and also the lands in Sy. No. 361 and 362 of Devavrunda Village. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants started obstructing plaintiff No. 6 and her family members from using the road situated in Sy. No. 308, proclaiming that Items No. 1 to 4 of the suit schedule ‘A’ properties have to be sold to them at lower prices. When the plaintiffs did not accept the same, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 started obstructing her peaceful possession of the properties, and, fed up with the same, she conveyed Items No. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule ‘A’ properties to plaintiff No. 1 under Sale Deed dated 24. 03. 2021. Enraged by the same, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 instigated defendant No. 3 to file the suit with respect to Item No. 1 of the suit schedule ‘A’ properties for the relief of partition in OS No. 18/2021. It is stated that the plaintiffs have a right of way by easement of necessity over the road existing in Sy. No. 308. The said route touches Item No. 1 of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. Therefore, they sought an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their use of the passage. It is the case of the defendants that they have no right of easement, and they have another route to reach their lands, and that the property exclusively belongs to the defendants. The trial Court, by the impugned o
