The court emphasized the importance of amicable settlement in property disputes, allowing parties to define and manage their access rights collaboratively.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

1. This appeal is filed by defendant No.1, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2016 passed in R.A. No.48/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Honnavar (for short, “the First Appellate Court”), whereby the First Appellate Court, while allowing the said appeal filed by the plaintiffs had set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2012 passed in O.S. No.52/2006 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Honnavar (for short, “the trial Court”) and has granted permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 by from trespassing into the pathway, from removing the gates situated at points “A” and “B”, and from damaging the pagar situated on both sides of the suit property.

2. After hearing the parties, by order dated

10.07.2025, this Court appointed Shri C.S. Shettar, learned Advocate as a Commissioner to inspect the disputed suit property and to submit a report specifically with regard to the defendant has any alternate way, passage, or pathway to access his property.

3. In pursuance thereof, the Commissioner has submitted his report consisting of four pages, along with a rough sketch and mahazar drawn in the presence of the parties to the suit and their respective counsel. The Commissioner has opined that there is no alternate way for the defendant to approach his house except the pathway shown in letters “ABCD” running through the gate Nos.I and II.

4. The matter was admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by holding that the appellant/defendant No.1 has got alternate road to reach his house despite the plaintiff not producing any evidence in this regard?”

5. After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Sabeel Ahmed, and learned counsel for respondents, Shri Ganapathi M.Bhat, submitted that the parties may be permitted to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement in the matter. Accordingly, the matter was listed for hearing today.

6. Today, a joint memo has been filed, duly signed by the appellant / defendant No.1, Shantaram S/o. Narayan Hegde, and respondent No.2 / plaintiff No.2, Ramachandra S/o. Narayan Bhagwat. For the better understanding of the terms of settlement between the parties, a copy of the sketch prepared by the Commissioner appointed by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 has also been made part of the said joint memo.

7. The joint memo reads as follows:

“1. That during the pendency of the above R.S.A, the parties have resolved the matter amicably and have agreed to settle all disputes regarding the usage of the pathway that is the subject matter of the suit

2. It is further submitted that, the path way is defined as mentioned wherein the said pathway starts from Kelgenkeri Road with 8 feet 8 inches and goes up to 43 feet and then Gate No.1 is located after that Gate No.2 is located 56 feet from Gate No.1 after the Gate No.2 (which measures 6 feet 3 inches) and the path constrained to 4 feet 2 inches which has length of 46 feet 4 Inches from the house of Respondent No.2 house and house and land of appellant herein and the said measurements and pathway is as mentioned in the commissioner report dated 15-07-2025 appointed by this Hon'ble Court.

3. The contesting Respondent No.2 have agreed to permit the appellants and his family members, visitors, tenants to use the existing pathway running from the public road (Kelaginkeri Oni) to his property bearing Sy. No. 320/1 and Sy. No. 564/5 and further the parties herein undertake that at no further point of time they will expand and alter with respect to the above mentioned extent of pathway, for the purpose of pedestrian and two-wheeler access.

4. The App