IMPORTANT POINT
Easementary rights – Right to way – Right of prescription is for continuous use from more than 20 years.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 passed in RA No.54/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Gundlupet.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction that the cart road existed in Sy.No.18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 260 of Hasaguli village and Sy.No.77 of Garagnahally village measuring east-west 12 feet and north-south 900 meter situated within the boundaries as per the plaint schedule is herein after called as cart road. The above survey numbers were originally belongs to one family. About 50 years back, the Karimallappa, Kadabasappa, Nagamma and others have purchased some portion of the property and they are in possession of the properties. The Sy.No.77 belongs to the defendants.Sy.No.19/3, 260/2 belongs to the defendant No.3. The Sy.No.24 and 25 some portion belongs to the defendants No.3 and 4. The Sy.No.29 and Sy.No.30/1 properties belongs to plaintiffs and his brothers. The above said properties are situated towards border of Hasaguli and Garaganahalli village. The plaintiffs have no road to reach their lands except the suit road. In Sy.No.18, 19, 27, 260 of Hasaguli village and Sy.No.77 of Garaganahalli village the karab lands are in existence, the said karab land is reserved for flowing of water and in the said karab land cart road is in existence. The plaintiffs and his brothers using the said road since 50 years to reach their lands. In the year 1985 the defendant No.1, 3 and 4 dug the well and cultivated the cart road and closed the road. The plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 have filed the application before the Tahashildar. The surveyor visited the property and conducted the Mahazar. The Tahasildar directed to the defendants not to cause obstruction to use and enjoyment of the cart road. Thereafter, the plaintiffs are using and enjoying the suit road without any intervention by the defendants. On 01.09.2007, when the plaintiffs were going to their lands, at that time the defendants restrained the plaintiffs and abused in filthy language. The plaintiffs have filed the complaint before the Gundlupet police station. The police have directed to the defendants not to cause obstruction to the use and enjoyment of cart road. Again on 16.09.2007 the defendants caused obstruction to the use and enjoyment of the cart road and given life threat to the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.

4. In pursuance of the summons, the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement. The defendant No.4 in the written statement has denied the averments made in the plaint. Further contended that Sy.No.18 belongs to H.S.Mahesha of Hasaguli village and Sy.No.19 belongs to Seenappa of Begura village. The defendant’s father purchased 1 acre 16 gunta. The Sy.No.25 property is the ancestral property. The Sy.No.26 and 27 belongs to the Garaganahalli. The Sy.No.28 belongs to the late Nagappa land and Sy.No.29 belongs to the plaintiffs and their family members. The Sy.No.77/1 of Garganahalli village measuring 25 gunta stands in the name of defendants’ father. The cart road not existed in the defendants land. The defendants are passing in Oni situated in Sy.No.24 western side to reach their land bearing Sy.No.24, 29 and 260. The plaintiffs are also used the said Oni for ingress and egress. The plaintiffs are using the Government Oni of Garganahalli village to reach Sy.No.30. There are two ways to reach the lands of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs without any grounds have filed the false suit. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the same. The other defendants have adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.4.

5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties has framed the issues with regard to the existence of the cart road and whether the plaintiffs are using the