This is a second appeal by the defendants.

The

respondents

though

served

have

remained unrepresented.

The defendants had instituted a suit seeking

for a declaration that they were having a right of

easement of necessity over 'ABCD' cart-track in Re. Sy

Nos.25 and 26 of Rangapura Village to reach their lands

3

bearing Survey Nos.14, 15/P, 12/P and 13/P of

Papadevarahalli Village which belongs to them.

4.

They stated that the defendants were the

owners of the lands in Re. Sy. Nos.25 and 26 of

Ranagapur Village and there existed a road leading from

Jagalur to Kyasanahalli Village running south-north

abutting to the lands of the defendants. It was stated to

the west of the defendants lands, the lands of the

plaintiffs were situated and in order to access their lands,

they had to use the land of the defendants.

5.

They contended that a portion marked at

'ABCD' cart-track was a necessary easementary pathway

which had been in existence from time immemorial and

they were entitled for use of the said cart-track for the

beneficial enjoyment of their lands. They pleaded that

there was no alternative cart-track to their land and the

defendants were causing obstruction to the usage of the

said cart-track.

4

6.

The defendants entered appearance and

contested the suit.

7.

They stated that there was no recognized

pathway/cart-tack passing through their lands through

which, the plaintiffs lands could be accessed. It was

stated that the lands of the plaintiffs were situated in

Papadevarahalli village whereas, the lands of the

defendants were in Rangapura village.

8.

It was stated that the plaintiffs did not have

any easementary right and the pathway running Re. Sy.

Nos.25 and 26 of Rangapura village had been made for

their exclusive use and in the revenue records, there was

no record of a pathway being in existence.

9.

The defendants denied the assertion of the

plaintiffs that they had consented for use of their land by

the plaintiffs to be used a cart-track and to transport

their agricultural equipments.

5

10. The Trial Court on appreciation of the

evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that

the plaintiffs had not proved that they had any

easementary right to use the cart-track 'ABCD' in Re. Sy.

Nos.25 and 26 of Rangapura village and it accordingly

dismissed the suit.

11. The plaintiffs being aggrieved, preferred an

appeal.

12. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the

evidence, came to the conclusion that the judgment and

decree of the trial Court was liable to be interfered with

as the evidence on record indicated that the plaintiffs

had no other alternative way to go to their lands except

the land bearing Re. Sy. Nos.25 and 26 of Rangapura

village, which belonged to the defendants and therefore,

they had acquired a right of easement of necessity over

the pathway.

6

13. The Appellate Court accordingly declared that

the plaintiffs had a right of easement of necessity over

the portion marked at 'ABCD' cart-track in Re. Sy.

Nos.25 and 26 of Rangapura village to reach their land in

Survey Nos.14, 15/P, 12/P and 13/P of Papadevarahalli

village. The Appellate Court, accordingly, allowed the

appeal and decreed the suit.

14. On 18.08.2010, this appeal was admitted to

consider the following substantial question of law:

"Whether in the facts and circumstances

of the case, the Appellate Court was justified in

holding that the plaintiffs i.e., respondents

herein

are

having

right of easement

of

necessity over 'ABCD' Cart Track in Survey

Nos.25 and 26 of Rangapura Village to reach

their lands in Survey Nos.14, 15(p), 12(p) and

13(p) of Papadevarahalli Village?"

15. An easement of necessity is described under

Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and would

be arise in three situations.

7

16. Firstly,

where

one

person

transfers

or

bequeaths immovable property to another,

if an

easement in other immovable property of the transferor

or testator is necessary for enjoying the subject of the

transfer or bequeath, the transfere