- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.104116 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH HONNAPPA NAYAK, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ANDLE, ANKOLA, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA – 581 344. 2. HONNAPPA RAMA NAYAK, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ANDLE, ANKOLA, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA – 581 344. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE) AND: PRATIBA RAMACHANDRA SHANBAG, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, R/O: ANDLE, ANKOLA, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 344. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/03/2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANKOLA IN M.A. NO. 6/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE ANKOLA IN O.S. NO. 45/2023 DATED ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.08.07 12:01:42 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 27/10/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION, DECLARATION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER WHICH TO BE PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMED FIT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET TH ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 31.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: I. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 22/03/2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Ankola in M.A. No. 6/2023 Vide Annexure-A and also the order passed by the Addl. Civil Judge Ankola in O.S. No. 45/2023 dated 27/10/2023 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition. II. Issue a writ of mandamus, direction, declaration or any other appropriate order which to be passed by this Hon’ble Court deemed fit in favor of the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners claim to the owners in possession of land bearing Sy.No.1/1, 1/4 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 Andle village in Angola taluka. The respondent claiming to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.1/2 of Andle village had filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming that there was a road measuring 12 feet leading up to the property of the respondent in O.S.No.45/2023, before learned Civil Judge, Ankola. 3. An injunction application having been filed to restrain the defendants therein i.e., the petitioners therein, from interfering with the usage of the aforesaid 12- feet road, the trial Court granted the said injunction. An appeal having been filed by the defendants, the appeal came to be dismissed. It is challenging both the orders that the petitioners are before this Court. 4. The submission of Shri Venkatesh M. Kharvi., learned counsel for the petitioners, is that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 have not considered the matter in the right perspective. Both the Courts have failed to take into consideration that it is an unregistered instrument. The claim on which it has been based should not confer any right, title, or interest. On that basis, it is clear that no temporary injunction could be granted on the basis of an unregistered document. The suit, not being one for declaration of easementary right, but only for injunction, could not have resulted in such an order being passed. 5. By relying on the agreement dated 02.04.2018, he submits that there is an agreement between Honnappa Rama Naik, Sharada Kom. Narayan Naik, Manjunath Honnappa Naik and what has been agreed under the said agreement is to make available a 12 feet road from East to West, as regards which, the plaintiff is alleged to have paid Rs.2,00,000/-. His submission is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 that the said persons have not signed the agreement, it is only witnesses, who have signed the agreement. 6. In the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, the location of the road has suddenly undergone a change stating that it is 12 feet road from North to South instead of East to West. As regards this sale deed, the family members of the petitioners are not signatories and as such, the same would not be binding on the petitioners. Merely, because there is an agreement entered into between two third parties, the petitioners cannot be injuncted from using his own property and or forcing the petitioners to provide an access in the property of the petitioners. 7. Lastly, he submits that there is one other road to the property of the plaintiff, and in that regard, he relies on the photograph at page 27 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 of the additional documents. On all the above points, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed. The order passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court be set-aside, and the application for injunction be dismissed. 8. Shri J.S.Shetty, the learned appearing for the respondent supports the order of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. His submission is that the entire property under Sy.No.1 belonging to the same family; they have formed sites in the said property and it is to provide access to the said sites formed in Sy.No.1 that a road of 12 feet width has been formed. Since it is not in dispute that all the properties must have access from Hilloor Road, the only manner of providing such access is from South to North, and not from East to West. As such, the contention that the road has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 to be provided East to West is not countenanced in law or facts, inasmuch as, if such a road East to West were to be provided, all the properties would not have access. 9. Secondly, the properties, which would access to the 12 feet width road, would not have access to the main road at Hilloor road. Therefore, he submits that the said contention is completely misplaced. It is what was agreed upon was to provide a road South to North, connecting the Hilloor road, which runs East to West. 10. Heard Shri Venkatesh M. Kharvi., learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri J. S. Shetty., learned counsel for the respondent. 11. What is being challenged is the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court as regards an injunction application. Both the Courts have dealt with the matter in detail - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 and have come to a categorical conclusion that the family of the petitioners, having received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for providing of the road. The said road is in existence and that the said road is an access from the Hilloor road to the property of the plaintiff. 12. The First Appellate Court has considered the registration, as well as the aspect of stamping of the document, and has come to a categorical conclusion that, there is no requirement of registration, and the stamping as made is, proper and correct. 13. Having gone through the said document, I am also of the considered opinion that the agreement does not require registration, and that the stamping is proper. It is not in dispute that the property bearing in Sy.No.1 belonged to the family of the petitioners and in the said property, sites have been formed and allotted - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 to individual family members. Defendant No.1 was allotted plot no. 1/3, defendant No.2 was allotted plot no. 1/4, husband of the vendor of the plaintiff had been allotted plot no. 1/2. The said vendor being the wife of the brother of the petitioners herein. The said brother having expired, his wife i.e., the sister-in-law of the petitioner, has sold Sy.No.1/2 to the plaintiff. There also appears to be certain dispute between the family members. 14. Be that as it may, the sketch which is admitted between the parties as regards the location of the individual sites of each of the parties, if were to be taken into consideration, then the only way that the property of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2, could have access is from a road running South to North from Hilloor road up to Sy.No.1/2. If a 12-feet road were to be made running East to West at any other - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 location in the property, the same would not provide access to all the properties. 15. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is one other road by pointing out the photograph produced along with the additional documents, a ex facie perusal of the said photographs indicates that the same is not a road, but only a small footpath, probably only allowing a bike to be ridden on it and no other vehicle could ply on that. 16. Hence, I find submission made in this regard to be completely mala-fide and the manner in which the proceedings have been continued to be only to cause harm and injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has established a prima- facie case as regard the access; the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and irreparable injury would be caused to the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9778 WP No. 104116 of 2024 plaintiff if access through the 12 feet width road were not provided to the plaintiff. 17. In that view of the matter, for the reasons indicated by the trial Court, the First Appellate Court, as also for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned, the writ petition is dismissed. Though costs could be imposed, this Court refrains from doing so. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/- CT:ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 123