Dismissed¶70

Lakshminarayana v. G Ramalingappa

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2025RSA/1503/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 1503 of 2022, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, H.P. Sandesh J., decided 14-07-2025. Second appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging concurrent judgments granting easementary right over the 'ABCD' road / 'Kallugutte' pathway in defendants' land Survey No.158/2, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District. Key material: D.W.1's admissions of a 20 feet x 200 feet pathway and of causing obstruction; Ex.P1/Ex.D5 access provision; Ex.P2 dated 14.02.1997 cart track; photographs Exs.P11/P12 not confronted to P.W.1. Held: no perversity, no substantial question of law, appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the Trial Court decree granting the plaintiffs easementary right over the 'ABCD' road, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court, remains intact. ¶70

Lakshminarayana Vs G Ramalingappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the Trial Court decree granting the plaintiffs easementary right over the 'ABCD' road, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court, remains intact.

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs proved easementary right to use and enjoy the suit road marked 'ABCD' in the plaint rough sketch, situated in the defendants' land, to reach their land. +5 more

¶38

Court's answer

The Trial Court committed no error in granting the plaintiffs the relief of easementary right over the 'ABCD' road, and the First Appellate Court's confirmation of that judgment and decree, based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, involves no error; the concurrent findings contain no perversity.

¶67

Ratio / Principle

This Court accepted the Trial Court's reliance on D.W.1's categorical cross-examination admission that he caused obstruction to the plaintiffs' use of the road.

¶46

Key takeaways

The defendants, being owners in possession of Survey No.158/2, failed to disclose where 'Kallugutte' is located in their property, which undermined their contention that the reserved pathway is different from the 'ABCD' road.ratio¶60
D.W.1 categorically admitted in cross-examination that in Survey No.158/2 a pathway measuring 20 feet x 200 feet had been left to reach the plaintiffs' land; this admission, together with the contents of Ex.P1/Ex.D5, was weighed by this Court in upholding the concurrent findings.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Easementary right — Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings. Plaintiffs (appellants here) had sued for declaration and injunction claiming right of ingress and egress over the road marked 'ABCD' in the plaint rough sketch, running through defendants' land Survey No.158/2, contending it is the pathway reserved as 'Kallugutte' (partition/cart-track document Ex.P2 dated 14.02.1997; access provision noted in Ex.P1/Ex.D5). Trial Court granted easementary relief relying on D.W.1's admissions (a 20 feet x 200 feet pathway left in Survey No.158/2; obstruction caused) and the defendants' failure to disclose where 'Kallugutte' is located; photographs Exs.P11/P12 were not confronted to P.W.1. First Appellate Court confirmed. High Court found no error or perversity in the concurrent findings, declined to admit the appeal or frame substantial questions of law, and dismissed the second appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1503 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶11

KRISHNAMURTHY S/O PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF GAJAMARANAHALLY-572137 KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

G. RAMALINGAPPA S/O POOJAR GUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶18

SMT. BHAGAYAMMA W/O G. RAMALINGAIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶19

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF GAJAMARANAHALLY-572137. KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BALAMMA W/O LATE PUTTAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶23

PREMALATHA W/O SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O THUMBADI-572129 KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶24

P. SUSHEELAMMA W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O JYOTHINAGARA SIRA TOWN-572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶25

RANGANATHA S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O 4^TH CROSS HANUMANTHAPURA TUMAKURU TOWN-572102.

¶26

LINGANNA S/O PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O GAJAMARANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572137 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.265/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, SIRA.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶36

The suit was filed for the relief of declaration and injunction, wherein easementary right is claimed in respect of road shown as ‘ABCD’ in the plaint rough sketch and specific case of the plaintiffs is also that defendants are causing obstructions to use the ‘ABCD’ road to ingress and egress to the plaintiffs’ property.

¶37

The defendants appeared and filed written

¶38

statement denying the very claim made by the plaintiffs. Hence, the Trial Court framed an issue whether the plaintiffs prove that they are having easementary right to use and enjoyment of suit road situated in the portion of land of defendants marked as ‘ABCD’ in the plaint of rough sketch to reach their land, whether the defendants are causing any obstructions for using the same, whether the defendants prove

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

that there is no any road in their land and plaintiffs are trying to create new road in their land, whether the defendants further prove that the plaintiffs are using another pathway on the eastern end of land Survey No.158 to reach their land.

¶42

The Trial Court having considered the pleading of the parties, also given an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and got admitted the documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The plaintiffs also examined one witness as P.W.2. The defendants on the other hand, examined defendant No.2 as D.W.1 and got admitted the documents 13 documents as Exs.D1 to D13. The defendants also examined one witness as D.W.2.

¶43

The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on the record, particularly taking note of the claim made by the plaintiffs, discussed the same in paragraph No.17 and also taken of the fact that defendants’ counsel not suggested even to P.W.1 and P.W.2, nor deposed in the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 where exactly “Kallugutte” located in the property of the defendants. The defendants, being the owners in possession of land bearing

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Survey No.158/2, ought to have disclosed where “Kallugutte” is located in their property and having discussed the same, when the Trial Court not found any such “Kallugutte” as claimed, comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs have proved through material that the road is situated in the defendants’ property described as ‘ABCD’ in the plaint rough sketch. There is no contrary is placed by the defendants to disbelieve the rough sketch annexed to the plaint and also taken note that, it is an admitted fact that the defendants have to leave road for ingress and egress to the plaintiffs as per Ex.P2. The defendants also admitted that there is a road in their property. The defendants denied the plaint rough sketch. The defendants have not placed any material to disbelieve the rough sketch annexed to the plaint. The defendants have also not described where “Kallugutte” located in their property. Such being the case, the Court has to accept that the said road is situated in the defendants’ property. The Trial Court even while answering issue Nos.2 and 3 also taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1. In the cross-examination, he categorically admits that caused obstruction. Hence, granted the relief of easementary right in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record, formulated to the point whether the Trial Court erred in holding that the road shown as ‘ABCD‘ in the plaint sketch is the road reserved as “Kallugutte” in the partition dated 14.02.1997, whether the Trial Court erred in holding that except the disputed road i.e. ‘ABCD’ in the plaint sketch, no other road is in existence as contended by the defendants and whether it requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court also reassessed the material on record and particularly taken note in paragraph No.15 that during the course of cross-examination of P.W.2, he admits that defendants have left the pathway in the “Kallugutte” portion. He has denied that plaintiffs are claiming pathway over cultivated land. Further, D.W1 in the cross-examination admits that Survey No.158/2, pathway measuring 20 feet x 200 feet has been left to reach the land of plaintiffs. He also claims that plaintiffs are reaching their land in no specific manner and are attempting to claim road in the cultivable land.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Having reassessed the material available on record,

¶55

the First Appellate Court also taken note of in paragraph No.21 the contents of Ex.P1/Ex.D5, wherein provision is made to access the land that is ingress and egress and though defendants claims that “Kallugutte” pathway is different, but during the course of cross-examination, D.W.1 admits the existence of the same. Having taken note of the fact that there is no other alternative road to access the plaintiffs’ property, granted the relief confirm the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶56

The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the document of Ex.P2 dated 14.02.1997, particularly the cart track portion and whether the width of the cart track shown as 20 feet in defendants’ lands is legal is to be considered in this second appeal and contend that both the Courts have not considered the material on record and it amounts to perversity.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also on perusal of material, particularly the claim made by the plaintiffs as well as the defence which was taken by the defendants and considering both oral and documentary evidence, the witness D.W.1 has produced the documents of Exs.P11 and P12-photographs wherein the existence of mud road can be seen. The documents are also not confronted to P.W.1 as an attempt to rebut the case of the plaintiffs and also having taken note of ‘ABCD’ portion which is shown in the photographs, the Trial Court in detail discussed the material on record, particularly the admission on the part of D.W.1 during the course of cross-examination, wherein he categorically admits that a provision is made to reach the land of plaintiffs’, but not exactly shown where the “Kallugutte” located in the property of the defendants. But, there are photographs that there is a pathway to go to the land of plaintiffs and the defendants being the owners in possession of land bearing Survey No.158/2 ought to have disclosed where “Kallugutte” is located in their property, in order to reach the property of the plaintiffs. When such material is not found and when there is no alternative road to access the property of the

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

plaintiffs and even Trial Court also in paragraph No.18 extracted the admission regarding causing of obstruction in respect of the property of the plaintiffs, since he says that he will not allow the plaintiffs to use the property which belongs to him and the same is discussed in paragraph No.19.

¶64

The First Appellate Court also in detail discussed the admission on the part of D.W.1, particularly in paragraph No.16, wherein he categorically admits that in Survey No.158/2 pathway measuring 20 feet x 200 feet has been left to reach the land of the plaintiffs. When such admission is given and also taken note of contents of Ex.P1/Ex.D5 in paragraph No.21 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court. When such reasoning is given and photographs are also produced and when there is no specific mention as to location of “Kallugutte” portion in Ex.P1 and defendants have also not disclosed in Survey No.158/2 where exactly the “Kallugutte” is located and all these materials are considered by both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. When such being the consideration made with regard to question of fact and question of law by the Trial Court regarding easementary right which the

¶65

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25798 RSA No. 1503 of 2022

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

plaintiffs is entitled and found that there was obstruction caused by the defendants for usage of the said pathway, the Trial Court rightly granted the relief of easementary right in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in granting the relief of easementary right and confirmation of the same by the First Appellate Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. No grounds to admit and frame substantial question of law, since no perversity in the findings of both the Courts.

¶68