Allowed¶50

K G Siddanagouda S/O Late K G Mahalinganagouda v. Smt K G Sunitha Wife of Late K G Linganagouda Daughter in Law of Late K G Siddanagouda

Easement – Access to land – Temporary injunction

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2026WP/109211/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Dharwad), WP No.109211/2025 (GM-CPC), decided 09.02.2026 by Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti; easement/temporary injunction dispute in O.S.No.379/2023; appellate reversal in MA No.6/2025 set aside; defendant No.1 to provide access way to plaintiff's land; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w S.151 CPC; Articles 226 and 227; writ of certiorari; undertaking; merits left open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 14.11.2025 in MA No.6/2025 and order dated 25.01.2025 on IA No.II in O.S.No.379/2023 set aside; respondent No.1/defendant No.1 directed to provide the way to the petitioner/plaintiff to reach his land; all contentions left open. ¶50

K G Siddanagouda S/O Late K G Mahalinganagouda Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi in MA No.6/2025, setting aside the temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, should be quashed/set aside. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Writ petition allowed: the appellate Court's order in MA No.6/2025 dated 14.11.2025 and the trial Court's order on IA No.II in O.S.No.379/2023 dated 25.01.2025 are both set aside.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 shall provide the way to the petitioner/plaintiff to reach his land, in line with the undertaking given by its counsel.

¶51

Key takeaways

The order is passed without going into the merits of the matter; it shall have no bearing on the main suit, the trial Court shall decide the suit independently on merits, and all contentions of the parties are left open.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Easement – Access to land – Temporary injunction – Plaintiff in O.S.No.379/2023 sought declaration of easement right and obtained interim injunction on 25.01.2025 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC restraining defendants from interfering with his use of the suit property. In appeal (MA No.6/2025), the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi allowed defendant No.1's appeal on 14.11.2025, holding that the defendants prima facie showed an alternative way to the plaintiff's land per the approved plan and that the trial Court had relied only on a hand sketch, and set aside the injunction. On the plaintiff's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, and in view of respondent No.1's undertaking through counsel to provide access, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside both the appellate order and the trial Court's injunction order, and directed respondent No.1/defendant No.1 to provide the way to the plaintiff to reach his land. Order passed without expressing any view on merits; no bearing on the main suit; all contentions left open.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1840 WP No. 109211 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 109211 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K.G. SIDDANAGOUDA S/O. LATE K.G. MAHALINGANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. KANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DIST. 583102.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR NARAYANKAR Date: 2026.02.12 10:48:34 +0530

¶14

SMT. K.G. SUNITHA WIFE OF LATE K.G. LINGANAGOUDA DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE K.G. SIDDANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF UJJINI ROAD, B.D.C.C. BANK BUILDING, KANAHOSALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583102,

¶15

K.G. CHANDRASHEKHARA GOUDA S/O. LATE K.G. SIDDANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. UJJINI ROAD, KANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE IN KUDLIGI TALUK-583102, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, D.C. OFFICE, DAM ROAD, HOSAPETE CITY, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583102.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1840 WP No. 109211 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, BALLARI CITY, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583102.

¶21

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KUDLIGI, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583102.

¶22

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HOSAHALLI, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583102.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2, R3, R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED (UNREPRESENTED); SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2025 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI IN M.A.NO.06/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.II IN O.S.NO.379/2023. B) ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1840 WP No. 109211 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.II in MA No.6/2025, dated 14.11.2025 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudgli, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶33

The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a declaration that he has a right to easement in respect of the suit scheduled property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. The said application came to be allowed by order dated 25.01.2025, whereby the defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s usage of the suit scheduled property until disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 herein, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, had filed MA No.6/2025, which came to be allowed by order dated 14.11.2025. While allowing the MA, the appellate Court had observed that as per the documents submitted by defendant No.1, it clearly show that there is an alternative

¶34

way to reach the plaintiff’s property from the National Highway, which runs from Hosapete-Chithradurga and another

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1840 WP No. 109211 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

way as per the approved plan by the Town and Village Planning Department in respect of the suit schedule ‘B’ property. Hence, the plaintiff failed to establish that there is no alternative way to reach his land. But the defendants prima facie established that there is an alternative way to reach the land of the plaintiff. Hence, without establishing the right of easement, he cannot seek the relief of permanent injunction and also interim relief of temporary injunction. Hence, the plaintiff failed to prove that there is a prime facie case to grant ad-interim temporary injunction against the defendant No.1.

¶38

The appellate Court also observed that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants rather than the plaintiff and the plaintiff failed to establish the right of easement. The appellate Court had further held that considering the documents available on record, even on failure of the plaintiff to establish that there are no alternative ways to reach the land of the plaintiff, the trial Court had granted the order of temporary injunction only based on the hand sketch without considering the approved plans issued by the Authority and accordingly, set-aside the order.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1840 WP No. 109211 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

petitioner/plaintiff submits that the appellate Court ought not to have taken into consideration the sketch prepared by the defendants, where the way is shown and according to the petitioner, there is no way to reach his land and the appellate Court based on the report ought not to have set-aside the order and ought not to have vacated the injunction that is granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 submits that there is a way to reach the petitioner's land and in fact they have laid a road and the same gives access to the petitioner’s land. It is submitted that the plaintiff could not make out a prime facie case and the appellate Court had rightly held and rightly passed the impugned order.

¶44

Having heard the counsels on either side, perused the material on record. In these factual matrix and the facts that the trial Court had considered the sketch, which is placed before the Court by the defendants and the other sketch does not show the property of the petitioner, the whole purpose of

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1840 WP No. 109211 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

filing an IA and granting of an interim order at this stage of pending suit is to see that the plaintiff gets the way to reach his property.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 submits that they undertake to provide the way to the plaintiff to reach his land. Hence, at this stage, without going into the findings of the appellate Court or the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) The writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the appellate Court in MA No.6/2025 dated 14.11.2025 as well as the order passed by the trial Court on IA No.II in OS No.379/2023, dated 25.01.2025.

¶51

ii) Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 shall provide the way to the petitioner/plaintiff to reach his land.

¶52

iii) This order is passed without going into the merits of the matter and it will not

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1840 WP No. 109211 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

have any bearing on the main suit. This order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits or observation of this Court and the trial Court shall decide the suit based on the merits of the case independently.

¶57

iv) All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶58

v) All I.A.s. in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶59

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶60

JTR CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

K G Siddanagouda S/O Late K G Mahalinganagouda v. Smt K G Sunitha Wife of Late K G Linganagouda Daughter in Law of Late K G Siddanagouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K G Siddanagouda S/O Late K G Mahalinganagouda v. Smt K G Sunitha Wife of Late K G Linganagouda Daughter in Law of Late K G Siddanagouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Baburao Chandrakant Jadhav Vs Dishesh Yallappa Jadhav

Basappa R Chakalabbi S/O Rudrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Veerayya Vs the District

Balavva Nagappa Kotagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar S/O Yallappa Guttennavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Meghna W/O Bajaj Nimbalkar Vs the Land Tribunal Chikkodi