A disputed prescriptive easement must be declared before permanent injunction can be granted.

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing his use of a 10–12-foot road allegedly running along the southern edge of the defendant’s Survey No. 39 and connecting Bolur-Kigga Road to Shankarkoppa.

He claimed that he and other villagers had used the road for over 20 years and that the former owner had consented to its formation.

The defendant disputed the plaintiff’s right, asserting that the road was private and that an alternative route was available; she also contended that a bare injunction suit was not maintainable without appropriate declaratory relief.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff had not established the asserted right; the first appellate court affirmed that decision.

The plaintiff appealed under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction, including in their findings on the alleged interference and the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief

2. Whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC

Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act governs acquisition of an easement by prescription, requiring the claimant to establish the legally prescribed period of qualifying enjoyment.

Where a plaintiff claims a right of way over another’s property by prescription and that right is specifically disputed, the plaintiff must establish the easementary right and seek appropriate declaratory relief; a bare injunction claim will not suffice in the circumstances identified by the Court.

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies only where a substantial question of law arises.

The judgment does not identify any precedent as a basis for the High Court’s decision.

The High Court considered the concurrent findings that the plaintiff had not established an easementary right over the disputed road, which lay within the defendant’s land, or shown a legal basis for treating it as a public road.

It also noted the findings that the plaintiff and other villagers had access to Shankarkoppa by an alternative route via Malur.

Given the defendant’s specific denial and the plaintiff’s claim of a prescriptive right, the Court held that appropriate declaratory relief was required; the evidence and pleadings did not establish grounds for granting the requested bare injunction.

The concurrent findings disclosed no substantial question of law.

It reserved liberty to the appellant to bring an appropriate suit seeking comprehensive relief, including declaration, subject to limitation, available defences, and other applicable exceptions.