Karnataka HC Upholds Injunction Blocking Neighbor’s New Eastern Road Through Land, As An Existing Western Path Gives Access

The original plaintiff, Shadakshari, sued for a permanent injunction concerning land in Sy. No. 29/5, claiming that the defendant was attempting to form a road through its eastern portion.

The defendant asserted a right of access by a pathway on the eastern side.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the revenue records and village map showed pathways in the survey land and concluding that the plaintiff had not established entitlement to an injunction.

On the plaintiff’s appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed, finding evidence of a pathway on the western side and no acceptable evidence of one on the eastern side; it decreed the suit.

The defendant appealed to the High Court under Section 100 CPC.

The appeal was governed by Section 100 CPC, under which the High Court considers a second appeal on a substantial question of law.

The Court’s reasoning applied the principle that a first appellate court may reverse a trial court’s decree where the trial court has overlooked material evidence and the appellate court gives an evidentiary basis for its contrary findings.

The High Court found that the First Appellate Court had considered the plaintiff’s ownership, the sketch and revenue records, the village map, and the photographs.

Those materials supported its finding that a pathway existed west of the suit property and connected the defendant’s northern land to the main road to the south; the defendant had not established an eastern pathway.

The Trial Court had failed to appreciate material evidence concerning the western pathway and the defendant’s access to his land.

The High Court therefore held that the First Appellate Court was justified in interfering with the Trial Court’s decision.

It dismissed the second appeal, leaving in place the decree restraining the defendant from illegally damaging the suit property, removing the fence, or forming a road there; the Court’s reasoning recognized the defendant’s use of the western pathway for access.