IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2011 (DEC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. K. KALAVATHI W/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.18, 4^TH CROSS NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL, SUBEDAR PALYA YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.C. SHANTAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. KUBER SINGH S/O LATE ANJANI RAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.25, 3^RD CROSS Digitally signed by SUBEDAR PALYA NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH YESHWANTHPURA COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 022.

2. SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

3. SMT. ASHWATHAMMA S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS BOTH ARE RA/T NO.26

3^RD CROSS, SUBEDAR PALYA YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE-560 022.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;

V/O DATED 29.11.2012 APPEAL AGAINST R3 IS ABATED AND R2 IS DISMISSED)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/O-XLI, RULE-1, R/W, SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2010 PASSED IN O.S.1829/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE VII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by unsuccessful defendant assailing the judgment and decree rendered in OS.No.

1829/ 1998.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction simpliciter in O.S. No.1829/1998. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint to incorporate the relief of declaration, specifically seeking a declaration of his easementary right over the suit schedule ‘C’

property.

4. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that his grandfather, Hanuman Singh, had purchased the schedule ‘A’ property under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1948, and that the said property subsequently stood transferred in the name of Anjani Ram Singh, the plaintiff’s father. It was further pleaded that the defendants are the owners of schedule ‘B’ property situated on the northern side of the plaintiff’s property and that a passage exists in between the properties belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants.

5. The plaintiff specifically averred that disputes had earlier arisen in respect of the said passage, pursuant to which the defendants had instituted a suit in O.S. No.1241/1976. Though the said suit was initially decreed, the plaintiff’s father, aggrieved by the injunction granted therein, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.182/1976, wherein the appellate Court allowed the appeal and categorically held that the plaintiff’s father had an easementary right over the suit passage and that the said passage constituted the only access available to him. Notwithstanding the finality attained by the judgment in R.A. No.182/1976, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants once again deliberately raised the height of the wall on the northern side of the plaintiff’s property, thereby obstructing free flow of light and air, and also attempted to encroach upon the common passage by extending the common wall, which necessitated the filing of the present suit.

6. Upon service of summons, defendants 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statement contesting the suit. During the pendency of the proceedings, defendants 1 and 2 brought to the notice of the Court that they had alienated the suit property in favour of defendant No.3. In the written statement, the defendants disputed the plaintiff’s claim of easementary right over the suit passage and sought dismissal of the suit.

7. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues and directed the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and produced 19 documents in support of his case. The defendants, however, did not