IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2019 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI K H VENKATARAMAIAH S/O DODDAHONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK-572 101 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH S/O SHIVANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

2. SMT. VIMALAKSHMMA Digitally signed W/.O SIDDARAMAIAH, by PANKAJA S AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, Location: HIGH COURT OF

3. SRI. DAKSHINAMURTHY C.S., KARNATAKA S/.O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. SMT. PADMA B S D/O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SMT. SHAKUNTALA B.S D/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS (a) TO (c) ARE R/OF BEERASANDRA PALYA KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK-572 101, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ S AND SMT. K. LALITHA, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK-572 101, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.46/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JFMC TIPTUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.10.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.42/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC TIPTUR.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal.

2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of easement right of necessity and for permanent injunction against the defendant, for 10 feet road towards southern side of Sy.No.95/1A marked as PQRS in plaint annexed sketch (for brevity, "schedule road").

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the Sy.No.95/1 of Beerasandra Village originally belongs to one Honnappa and said Honnappa alienated Sy.No.95/1 through various deeds. He sold a part of it to his son Mudlagiriyappa (from whom the defendant acquired property) and a part to his son-in-law Shivanna. After Shivanna's death, property in Sy.No.95/1A was allotted to plaintiff No.2 in a family partition. Honnappa executed a Gift Deed dated 15.08.1961 in favour of plaintiff No.1 (which is mentioned as "C" in the sketch). Honnappa also executed another Gift Deed in favour of defendant's husband, however, before execution of said Gift Deed, Honnappa was using the schedule road as the only way to have access to the property of the plaintiffs.

4. It is further case of the plaintiffs that, the defendant made an attempt to dig her property to lay a foundation for construction of the residential building thereby preventing the plaintiffs from use and enjoyment of schedule road. Even after the plaintiffs' request, defendant does not stop the construction work. Thus, the plaintiffs filed a suit before the Trial Court for declaration of easement right of necessity and permanent injunction restraining defendant from the plaintiffs' peaceful use of the said road.

5. The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement and denied the existence of road at any point in time as mentioned in the plaint annexed sketch and also denied that the vendor of the plaintiffs or the original owner was enjoying the schedule road as an easement. Further, it is contended that there is no reference regarding existence of schedule road in any of the registered documents pertaining to Sy.No.95/1. Despite knowing these facts, the plaintiffs filed the suit only with a malafide intention to coerce the defendant. Thus, there is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit for easement right of necessity and permanent injunction is therefore not maintainable. As such, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, partly decreed th