Easement of necessity requires prior unity of ownership and severance of tenements. Alternative access, however inconvenient, defeats such claim. In a second appeal, only substantial questions of law are examined, not reappreciation of evidence.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.3/2025 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 04.02.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CAV JUDGMENT

Though matter was listed for admission, since records were received and both learned counsel submitted their readiness to argue for final disposal of appeal on proposed substantial questions of law, matter was heard affording opportunity to both sides.

2. Challenging judgment and decree dated 27.09.2025 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet, in RA no.3/2025, this appeal is filed.

3. Sri Abhishek Huddar, learned counsel for appellants submitted, appellants were plaintiffs in OS no.67/2019 filed seeking for permanent injunction restraining defendant their men, agents etc., blocking or obstructing and for declaration of plaintiffs’ easementary right over ‘B’ schedule road to reach suit ‘A’ schedule land.

4. In plaint, it was stated that plaintiffs were absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 0.21 cents of Coffee Estate along with residential house situated in Sy.no.8/27, Khata no.13 of Mathur village, Ponnampet Hobli, Virajpet Taluk ('A' schedule, for short). And even earlier, mother of plaintiff no.1 was in possession of ‘A’ schedule from 1971 presuming it to be paisary land. She had also filed application to Government for grant of 20 cents in land in Sy.no.8/15 of Mathur village and under order no.NCR/168/84-85 dated 26.04.1985, Tahsildar, Virajpet had granted said land. However, at time of survey, it was later found that mother of plaintiff no.1 was in possession of land bearing Sy.no.8/27 belonging to Puchimada K. Thimmaiah and others. Therefore, Government grant was cancelled. Thereafter, plaintiff purchased said land under registered Sale Deed dated 11.12.2014 from Puchimada K. Thimmaiah and others.

5. It was further stated that there was a road in ‘A’ schedule, used by plaintiffs and their predecessors, as easement of necessity and which was used uninterruptedly from time immemorial as only road to reach ‘A’ schedule. Said motorable road described in plaint as commencing from Ponnampet - Balele road touching KEB office passing in Sy.no.8/26 of Mathur village measuring 15 ft. in width and 100 ft. in length. ('B' schedule, for short).

6. It was stated, defendant was granted a portion of land in Sy.no.8/26 with specific condition not to obstruct existing road. And plaintiffs had a motorable road in ‘B’ schedule, defendant obstructed it exerted pressure and got plaintiffs to execute agreement to pay ground rent for use of road. Defendant also attempted to put-up a gate and block ‘B’ schedule road and obstruct right of necessity. Then, defendant stored constructing material and on 01.10.2019 demanded plaintiffs to keep their vehicle outside ‘A’ schedule, plaintiffs lodged police complaint for action against blocking of access road and thereafter filed suit.

7. On appearance, defendant filed written statement denying plaint averments in toto and opposed suit as not maintainable, not filed with clean hands and pleadings lacking material particulars and suit being filed without prior notice mandated in law and as such defective. Plaintiffs’ claim of title and possession over ‘A’ schedule was d