- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14700 RSA No. 101006 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101006 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: SHRI MANOHAR MARUTI PALKAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SHIKKA NAGAR, SHINTRE COLONY, NIPANI, TAL. CHIKODI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: VIDHYA SAMVARDHAK MANDAL AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. SOMSHEKHAR KOTHIWALE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. TRADE AND BUSINESS, R/O. DALAL PETH, NIPANI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHRITH S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., NIPANI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NIPANI BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.31 15:12:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14700 RSA No. 101006 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent. 2. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff for having suffered the dismissal of his suit in O.S.No.8/2008 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nipani and R.A.No.1/2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Nipani. 3. The plaintiff/appellant had filed the suit for injunction against the defendant contending that a passage of the width of 25 feet and length of about 150 feet, which was earmarked in the sale deed executed by the vendors of the plaintiff, who was also the vendor of the defendant would also enure to the benefit of the plaintiff herein and therefore, any obstruction by the defendant be restrained. 4. A perusal of Ex.D4 and the sketch which is part of the plaint, would show that the plaintiff has access to his property from the road running east-west on the southern side. Adjacent to the property of the plaintiff on the western side, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14700 RSA No. 101006 of 2018 suit passage which leads to about 3 acres of the property of the defendant, who is running an educational institution is situated. The sale deed executed by the vendor of the defendant, who in turn was also the vendor of the plaintiff, would show that the accessibility to the 3 acres of land of the defendant would be through a 25 feet road adjoining the inspection bungalow. The plaintiff is claiming right over the said passage which is adjacent to his property and which is meant for any users who are on the northern side of the property of the plaintiff. Obviously, it is the defendant-Institution alone, which is having the property on the northern side of the property of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the said passage was a public road at any stretch of imagination. It was a passage which was meant for the defendant-Institution only. This interpretation of the document may be found in paragraph No.33 of the judgment of the trial Court. The finding of the trial Court has been upheld by the First Appellate Court and therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the said judgments. It needs to be observed that, if at all the defendant sells any part of his property to anybody else, and then such purchaser would also be entitled to use the said passage. Therefore, it is the prerogative - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14700 RSA No. 101006 of 2018 of the defendant to use the said road and in what manner it has to be used. Under these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE RKM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15