- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.103951 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. BASAPPA ANGADI, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE/AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANTUR, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587121. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH A.YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SUBHASH MADARKHANDI, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANTUR, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587121. 2. MANJUNATH S/O. SUBHASH MADARKHANDI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANTUR, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587121. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL IN MA NO.7/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE- E, AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL ON IA NO.1 IN OS NO.181/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2026.02.18 10:45:05 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in M.A.No.7/2025 dated 22.04.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), the defendant in O.S.No.181/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol (for short ‘the Trial Court’), is before this Court seeking to confirm the order passed on I.A.No.1 dated 04.01.2025 by the Trial Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The respondents herein had filed a suit seeking declaration of their right of easement to make use and enjoyment for transportation of the agricultural commodities and for passing of their cattle, plants etc., over 12 feet width suit ‘ABCD’ road. In the said suit, they filed an interlocutory application seeking injunction, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 04.01.2025. While dismissing the said application, the Trial Court observed that both the parties - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 have admitted partition, which had taken place in the year 1973 between the father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendant and other family members and also allotment of R.S.No.15/2A to the share of the father of the defendant and allotment of R.S.No.14/2A and R.S.No.14/6 to the share of the father of the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant has left suit ‘ABCD’ road measuring 12 feet in width and 60 meters in length towards southern portion of R.S.No.14 and 15 between the boundaries. The defendant denied the same and according to the defendant the plaintiffs have a right of way in the land of their paternal uncle. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiffs have not produced any document before the Trial Court to show the existence of such ‘ABCD’ road in the land. On perusal of the Mutation Diary No. 956, it prima facie appears that there is no recital with respect to leaving of 12 feet width road in the southern side of the land and the plaintiffs have not produced any partition deed. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiffs have produced two photographs and on perusal of the said photographs, it prima facie appears that there is no specific road measuring 12 feet in width, but a pathway can be seen in the said photographs and no mark of passing of bullock - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 carts and tractors can be seen, and hence the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that at this stage, the plaintiffs have not made out prima facie material against the defendant and balance of convenience also does not lean in their favour. It observed that if temporary injunction as prayed for is not granted, no loss or hardship will be caused to the plaintiffs and accordingly dismissed the application. The plaintiffs carried the same in appeal by filing M.A.No.7/2025, which came to be allowed by order dated 22.04.2025. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Court has observed that it is settled principle of law that the Appellate Court, while exercising its jurisdiction, is under duty to interfere with the jurisdiction of Trial Court if it is found that the Trial Court has acted on surmises and conjectures or has neglected the facts and adopted an illegal approach and also the Appellate Court cannot exercise its discretion to substitute the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. The Trial Court observed that there is no dispute that the property allotted to the share of the plaintiffs and defendants is an ancestral property and they have been enjoying the land since 1973. However, the Trial Court has rejected the I.A.No.1 on the ground that the said road is not mentioned in the record of rights of the said properties and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 on the ground as stated by the defendant there is an alternative road in the land of Shivappa Madarkhandi to reach the land of the plaintiffs. Without there being any document, the Trial Court has observed that there is an alternative road. The defendant has also not produced any document before the Trial Court regarding the availability of an alternative road. The rejection of interim application by the Trial Court without properly considering the evidence produced by the plaintiffs and defendant, by wrongly exercising the jurisdiction, is not justified. The Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the Trial Court has failed to consider the application in the light of the settled law and accordingly granted injunction against the defendant from interfering with the use of the ‘ABCD’ road as shown in the hand sketch map produced along with the plaint. Aggrieved thereby the defendant is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that when the plaintiffs have filed a suit and sought an injunction restraining the defendant, the burden lies on them to prove the same. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs could not prove the same by adducing evidence that there is ‘ABCD’ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 pathway and the plaintiffs are using the same. According to them, as per the partition deed, this pathway is provided. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the partition deed has not been placed before the Court. When the plaintiffs could not prima facie prove the existence of a pathway and exercise of the easementary right, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed for injunction. However, the Appellate Court contrary to the settled law and without there being any other material before the Court had interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the Appellate Court, without any basis, cannot interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that there are no reasons given by the Appellate Court while granting injunction. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that both the parties are related to each other and from times immemorial they have been using ‘ABCD’ land as a pathway. Now there is a standing sugarcane crop. If the plaintiffs are permitted to transport the crop, it would cause lot of hardship to the plaintiffs. This aspect was rightly considered by the Appellate Court while granting injunction. It is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 submitted that, as stated by the defendant, there is no alternative road to the plaintiffs. The Trial Court had failed to appreciate all these contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiffs and dismissed the application. The Appellate Court considering the submissions, had rightly granted injunction and there are no grounds to interfere with. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Both the counsels have argued and in the light of the submissions made by both the counsels, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the site and submit a report as to whether there is any pathway i.e.’ABCD’ road as shown in the plaint?; Whether there is a pathway/road existing between the land of the plaintiffs and defendant which can be used for the ingress/egress and for transportation of the agricultural produce? The Advocate Commissioner has filed a report before this Court. As far as the first query is concerned, it is stated that, there is no such pathway existing i.e. ‘ABCD’ road as shown in the plaint. The sugarcane is planted in the portion shown as ‘ABCD’ in the plaint. It is stated that, there is no pathway/road existing between land - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 of the plaintiffs and defendant which can be used for ingress/egress of transportation of agricultural produce. The subject properties i.e. Sy. No.15/2A and Sy. No.14 are separated by a Bund which is 7 feet wide and 3 feet hight. The entire Sy. No.15/2A is cultivated with sugarcane. The western portion of Sy No.14 is cultivated with sugarcane and remaining eastern portion is uncultivated. As shown in the hand sketch, a rough walkway about 2 feet wide is there on the southern portion of Sy. No.14 which continues upto Bund, but does not continue in Sy. No.15/2A. 7. The defendant has filed his objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report. It is the contention that, earlier when he had filed the photographs, the pathway/road is clearly shown. Later, the plaintiffs have ploughed the land, as such, the existence of a pathway is not seen in the photographs or by the Commissioner. The same is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. Learned counsel also submits that, if the plaintiffs want to settle the dispute amicably, they are always ready, but the plaintiffs are not ready to part with the land or with the money. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 8. In the light of the Advocate Commissioner's report and in the light of the respective contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, this Court has to appreciate the order of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. When the Plaintiffs are seeking their right of easement and also sought an injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that there is a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. According to the plaintiffs, there is a partition and as per the partition, ‘ABCD’ land is the pathway and the plaintiffs can use the same. If that is the contention of the plaintiffs, they could have produced all the documents before the trial Court to prima facie show that as per the partition deed, they have been enjoying the pathway. The trial Court observes that no partition deed is placed before the Court. As there is no prima facie material before the Court to accept the said contention of the plaintiffs, the trial Court had dismissed the I.A. seeking injunction. 9. When it comes to the Appellate Court's order, this Court is not able to understand and appreciate on what basis the Appellate Court has granted injunction. There is no other - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 material placed before the Appellate Court than what was filed before the trial Court and on what basis and reasons the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion and has reversed the finding of the trial Court, is not known. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of the Appellate Court has to be set- aside. 10. Both the parties are related and by virtue of the partition, both the parties are enjoying their respective lands. There is no dispute about the fact that there is a standing crop in the plaintiffs’ field and they have to cut and transport the same. For that, they require a pathway. Whether there is ‘ABCD’ pathway or not i.e.suit schedule property, this Court is not gone into the merits of the matter. If the plaintiffs are not permitted to take the standing crops, that would cause lot of injuries and hardship to them. Hence, without going into the merits of the matter whether there is a pathway in suit ‘ABCD’ property or not, this Court on the ground of equity is passing the following: ORDER (i) Accordingly, the order dated 22.04.2025 passed in M.A. No.7/2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mudhol is set-aside. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2043 WP No. 103951 of 2025 (ii) The plaintiffs are permitted to take their standing crop of sugarcane and the defendant, as a one time measure, shall permit the plaintiffs to take the said produce through their land. (iii) The plaintiffs by way of carts can transport the produce through the land of the defendant. If the plaintiffs require to use of tractor, once after the transportation of the sugarcane, the plaintiffs shall restore the land as and what condition. (iv) This court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. Only on a ground of equity, this order is passed. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. (v) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (vi) All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN,RH CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2