House Buyers’ Bid To Keep A Claimed Access Road Open Fails At Karnataka HC After They Denied It Existed

The respondents/plaintiffs sued for declaration of an easementary right to access their Schedule ‘K’ property through Schedule ‘I’ and ‘J’ properties, and for consequential injunctive relief.

The petitioners/defendants denied in their written statement that the ‘I’ and ‘J’ roads existed, but applied under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from obstructing their use of the ‘I’ road.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, and the Appellate Court affirmed that decision.

The defendants challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The application for interim relief was brought under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the challenge to the resulting orders was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that a party cannot seek relief contrary to its own pleadings; it also held that the existence of the road and any easementary right could be determined only after a full trial.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The defendants’ written statement denied the existence of the ‘I’ and ‘J’ roads, while their injunction application sought to prevent obstruction of their use of the ‘I’ road shown in the plaintiffs’ sketch.

The Court agreed that this inconsistency prevented the defendants from obtaining the requested interim relief on the basis of the very road they had denied.

Because the road’s existence and the parties’ rights concerning it required determination at trial, the Court found no basis to interfere with the concurrent orders.