- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51146 RSA No. 525 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 525 OF 2019 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K H VENKATARAMAIAH S/O DODDAHONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK-572 101 TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH S/O SHIVANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. VIMALAKSHMMA W/.O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 3. SRI. DAKSHINAMURTHY C.S., S/.O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. SMT. PADMA B S D/O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SMT. SHAKUNTALA B.S D/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51146 RSA No. 525 of 2019 (a) TO (c) ARE R/OF BEERASANDRA PALYA KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK-572 101, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ S AND SMT. K. LALITHA, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK-572 101, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.46/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JFMC TIPTUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.10.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.42/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC TIPTUR. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51146 RSA No. 525 of 2019 CAV JUDGMENT 1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal. 2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of easement right of necessity and for permanent injunction against the defendant, for 10 feet road towards southern side of Sy.No.95/1A marked as PQRS in plaint annexed sketch (for brevity, "schedule road"). 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the Sy.No.95/1 of Beerasandra Village originally belongs to one Honnappa and said Honnappa alienated Sy.No.95/1 through various deeds. He sold a part of it to his son Mudlagiriyappa (from whom the defendant acquired property) and a part to his son-in-law Shivanna. After Shivanna's death, property in Sy.No.95/1A was allotted to plaintiff No.2 in a family partition. Honnappa executed a Gift Deed dated 15.08.1961 in favour of plaintiff No.1 (which is mentioned as "C" in the sketch). Honnappa also executed another Gift Deed in favour of defendant's husband, however, before execution of said Gift Deed, Honnappa was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51146 RSA No. 525 of 2019 using the schedule road as the only way to have access to the property of the plaintiffs. 4. It is further case of the plaintiffs that, the defendant made an attempt to dig her property to lay a foundation for construction of the residential building thereby preventing the plaintiffs from use and enjoyment of schedule road. Even after the plaintiffs' request, defendant does not stop the construction work. Thus, the plaintiffs filed a suit before the Trial Court for declaration of easement right of necessity and permanent injunction restraining defendant from the plaintiffs' peaceful use of the said road. 5. The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement and denied the existence of road at any point in time as mentioned in the plaint annexed sketch and also denied that the vendor of the plaintiffs or the original owner was enjoying the schedule road as an easement. Further, it is contended that there is no reference regarding existence of schedule road in any of the registered documents pertaining to Sy.No.95/1. Despite knowing these facts, the plaintiffs filed the suit only with a malafide intention to coerce the defendant. Thus, there - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51146 RSA No. 525 of 2019 is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit for easement right of necessity and permanent injunction is therefore not maintainable. As such, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, partly decreed the suit of plaintiffs by granting a pathway measuring width of 3 feet north-south and 183 feet east-west mentioned as PQRS in the plaint annexed sketch and granted permanent injunction against the defendant from making any construction or interfering in any portion of the aforesaid pathway. 7. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence has held that the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by granting the width of 3 feet north-south and 183 feet east-west mentioned as PQRS in the plaint annexed sketch. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs' are before this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51146 RSA No. 525 of 2019 9. I have heard Sri.Nagaraj. S and Smt.K. Lalitha learned counsels for the appellant/plaintiffs and Sri.Raghavendra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties, so also the evidence and documents available on record and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. 11. On careful perusal of the evidence and documents available on record, the only substantial question of law that arises for my consideration is: Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in restricting the easement of necessity to the appellants only by granting 3 feet width road? 12. As could be gathered from records, it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the land bearing Sy.Nos.95/1A and 95/1A2 situated on the eastern side of the defendant's property. On the southern side of the defendant's property, the plaintiffs have access to their property through the schedule road. It is admitted by both the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51146 RSA No. 525 of 2019 parties that, except the said road there is no other way to approach the plaintiffs' property. However, the contention of the plaintiffs is that the schedule road measures 10 feet width and the defendant is constructing residential building by obstructing the plaintiffs from the use and enjoyment of the said road. In the suit, a Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report, which clearly reveals that there is no road to the eastern side of the plaintiffs' property and the only way for access to the plaintiffs' property is the schedule road. In such circumstance, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court opined that the claim of the plaintiffs for 10 feet width road is exorbitant and 3 feet pathway in the defendant's property as an easement of necessity was appropriate and reasonable. Since the plaintiffs contended that they are in cultivation of their property and there is no ingress or egress except the schedule road even for simple transportation of agricultural products and carrying on agricultural activities. In such circumstance, in my considered view, even for access of bullock cart, 6 feet road is essentially required. As such, I am of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court require to be modified. Accordingly, I answer - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51146 RSA No. 525 of 2019 the substantial question of law in the "negative" and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgments and decrees dated 22.11.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.46/2011 and dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S No.42/2007 are modified. (iii) It is declared that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to have easement right of necessity over suit schedule property for a pathway/walkway measuring width of 6 feet north-south and 183 feet towards east to west mentioned as PQRS in the plaint annexed sketch. iv) Rest of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court remains undisturbed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51146 RSA No. 525 of 2019 Office to draw up the decree accordingly. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1