- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2126 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: M.JAYARAMAIAH SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI JAYARAM, W/O LATE M.JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 2. PRADEEP NAYAK J., S/O LATE M.JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 3. KUM. CHANDINI NAYAK J., D/O LATE M.JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT DYAPASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 AND: SMT.M.C.JAYAKUMARI W/O T. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, KODIHALLI VILLAGE, NADAVATI POST – 560 067, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOVINDA REDDY C.M., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2023 PASSED IN RA No. 44/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2017 PASSED IN OS No. 275/2008 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court. The factual - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that, plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule land and is in the possession which is bearing Survey No.25/2, measuring 14 acres and 33 guntas situated at K.G.Hanumantapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk. Plaintiff purchased the said land from one Smt. Vasantha Kumari under the registered sale deed dated 25.01.2006. Plaintiff is also having some property adjacent to the property in Survey No.25/2. The southern boundary of the property in Survey No.25/2 is upto the limit of Survey No.75 of Mittiganahalli Village. In the said Survey No.75, there is a road from east to west direction. The said road is in existence from immemorial time and it is a government road. A suit schedule road is the only road for the plaintiff to approach and to reach his land from the aforesaid main road. There is no other alternative road to the plaintiff’s property. The suit schedule road is carved out in Survey No.75 of the Mittiganahalli Village. The plaintiff’s vendor was using the said road which is in the suit schedule property to reach their land from the main road. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff is also using the suit schedule land to reach her property. In the year 1993, one Guttappa and defendant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 herein had given application to the government to classify the existing road in the said 7 guntas of land as road officially. The defendant was granted an extent of 2 acres 4 guntas of land in Survey No.75 of Mittiganahalli Village. Later, it was renumbered as new Survey No.102. The land situated on the eastern side of the suit land in Survey No.102 belongs to the plaintiff and the land on the western side of the scheduled property belongs to Guttappa in Survey No.97. The grant certificate which is issued in favour of Guttappa clearly shows the existence of the suit scheduled property and further, the plaintiff contended that the grantee shall not claim any right, possession and interest over the same and grantee shall not obstruct the ingress and egress of the adjacent land owners. The suit schedule road is in existence from many decades, but it is regularised in the year 1993. The revenue documents also disclose the existence of the suit schedule road. The Government of Karnataka notified and declared that the suit schedule property is a road. The Survey Authorities and Tahsildar visited the spot and demarcated the suit schedule property as road. Such being the case, defendant is having no absolute right and possession over the suit road. Plaintiff is also having right of easement in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 suit schedule property. Defendant with an intention to grab that road, he has made several attempts to block the same and caused inconvenience to the users of the easement and also obstructed the plaintiff’s right of easement over the suit schedule road and hence, she filed the suit. 3. After the issuance of the suit summons, defendant appeared and filed a written statement. He contended that 2 acres 8 guntas of land in Survey No.75 - New Survey No.102 is the self-acquired property of the defendant and the same is granted by the government. The revenue records are standing in his name and he is paying tax. The suit schedule property is situated on the western side of their property and the defendant is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same since 50 years without any disturbance from anybody. Plaintiff has built up the records by using her influence to form the road in the suit schedule property. Hence, defendant filed O.S.No.240/2007 against the government. Defendant also filed an application before the concerned authorities to confirm his unauthorised occupation in respect of the land situated on the western side of his property. Further, defendant contended that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 he has dumped 200 loads of mud in the suit schedule road. The same was removed by the plaintiff by using her influence. 4. In the additional written statement, defendant also contented that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, by reserving 7 guntas of land in Survey No.75 to form a road is stayed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.371/2009 and the said stay order is in force. The suit schedule property is within Survey No.102, measuring 2 acres 8 guntas of land and prays the Court to dismiss the suit. The parties are allowed to lead their evidence. The General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and the also examined two witnesses and produced documents, which are marked as Exs.P1 to P5. The General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant is examined DW.1 and produced 87 documents, marked as Exs.D.1 to D.87. 5. The trial Court having considered particularly the documents which have been relied upon by the plaintiff, in paragraph No.15 comes to the conclusion that recitals of Ex.P.45 clearly shows that the suit schedule property is situated on the western side of new Survey No.102, which belongs to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 the defendant. It is also true that the suit schedule property is situated towards the western side of 34 guntas of land in block No.1 in Survey No.75 of Mittiganahalli Village, is allotted to Guttappa, S/o.Ramaiah. The boundaries stated in Ex.P.14 i.e., grant certificate issued in favour of Guttappa, son of Ramaiah and Ex.P.45 i.e., sketch corroborates with each other. The boundaries stated in Ex.P.6 i.e., sketch prepared by the Taluk Survey at Survey No.75, suit schedule road, which is shown in dotted line and Ex.P.8, which is RTC and Ex.P.14 i.e., grant certificate issued in favour of Guttappa, all documents clearly corroborates each other. That above said documents clearly shows the existence of the suit schedule road as alleged by the plaintiff. 6. The trial Court also taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of DW.1 in the cross-examination at paragraph No.17, whereby, DW.1 has admitted the land granted to the Guttappa and its boundaries and also admitted that the plaintiff has purchased the land in Survey No.25/2 of K.G.Hanumantapura Village, which is situated on the southern side of the land in New Survey No.102. However, the trial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 Court also took note of all the documents in paragraph No.18 and comes to the conclusion that the existence of road is very clear and plaintiff is having a statutory right to reach his property and granted the relief. 7. The same is challenged before the appellate Court in R.A.No.44/2017 and the appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged by the appellants - defendants before the appellate Court, reassessed both oral and documentary evidence and particularly, taken note of the grant certificate at Ex.P.14 and the same is discussed in paragraph No.29 and also taken note of the recitals at Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.6. At paragraph Nos.30 and 31 has taken note of the document Ex.P.41, which is the report dated 04.12.2008, given by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar to the Secretary Revenue Department, the Government of Karnataka, wherein, 7 guntas of land in Survey No.75 of Mittiaganahalli Village is reserved for the purpose of forming road. The appellate Court having reassessed the material on record taken note of admission on the part of DW.1 and discussed the same in paragraph No.35. Having - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 reassessed the evidence available on record, concurred the judgment of the trial Court. 8. Being aggrieved by the said findings of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that, both the Courts have committed an error in not properly assessing the material on record and that holding that the plaintiff is entitled for right of easement as per Section 4 of the Easement Act, when the plaintiff has not proved the prescribed period to claim such right, when there is no existence of road. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the Courts are not justified in granting the relief, that he is having an easementary right to reach the land, wherein Survey No.25/2 and the very approach is erroneous. Hence, this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantive question of law. 9. Having heard the appellant’s learned counsel and also on perusal of the reasoning of the trial Court, particularly, the trial Court having considered the case of the plaintiff in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 paragraph No.2 and also the defence of the defendant in the written statement at paragraph No.6, has taken note of both grant orders at Exs.P14 and Ex.P.45 and also the recitals in the document at Ex.P6 and also at paragraph Nos.16 and 17. At paragraph No.17, the trial Court taken note of the admission on the part of DW.1 and in paragraph No.6 also discussed in detail that no other alternative road is available to reach the land of the plaintiff and also defendant has not lead any evidence to show that the plaintiff is having any other alternative road to reach the land in Survey No.25/2. 10. The appellate Court having reassessed the material taken note of the very grant order at Ex.P14 and also the report of the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Ex.P41 as well as the admission on the part of DW1 in the cross examination that the land was granted to Guttappa, S/o.Ramaiah and its boundaries and that the plaintiff purchased the above land which is situated on the southern side of land in New Sy.No.102. But, she denied the existence of road claimed by the plaintiff. The material available before the Courts is very clear that the road is in existence and the grant certificate also - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 discloses the same. Though defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.113/2009, the application for injunction is dismissed in the said suit. 11. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to notice of this Court that an appeal is filed before the Karnataka Land Ttribunal and stay is granted but the same is pending. When such being the case and the plaintiff categorically pleaded that she is not having any other alternative road to reach her land except the said road, which is in existence in the grant certificate as well as the other revenue records also, particularly, Ex.P6 as well as Ex.P41, I do not find any error committed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court in coming to such a conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for the easement right, in the absence of any alternative road to reach the land of the plaintiff and hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law as it is not a case for invoking Section 100 of the C.P.C. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43147 RSA No. 2126 of 2023 12. In view of the discussions made above, second appeal is dismissed. I.A.No.2/2023 is disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29