SUBHASCHANDRA SHETTY Vs. PADMARAJ BALLAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of mandatory injunction is that, originally, the plaintiff No.1 alone had filed this suit against defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, along with the plaint, he had also moved application in I.A.No.2 under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. seeking permission to file the said suit in the representative capacity and the same was allowed. Upon publication of notice, the remaining plaintiffs and defendants have appeared in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is having certain immovable properties in Koila Village, which are described as plaint 'A' schedule property. The house of the plaintiffs is situated away from the plaint 'A' schedule property. There is a road approach to plaint 'A' schedule property, which passes through plaint 'B' schedule property. The plaint 'B' schedule property is a Government land and the situation of the properties and road is shown in the eye sketch annexed to the plaint. The road 'RRR' referred in the eye sketch is very old mud road, being used by the general public. The said road deviated from 'Bantwal AnnalikeArla' main road and ends at Maavanthooru Bail. Except this road, there is no other road to reach Mavanthooru bail. The people of the locality are using the said road since time immemorial. The plaintiffs are also using this public road to go to their plaint 'A' schedule property. Even the predecessors in title of 'A' schedule property were using the said road. Except the said road, there is no other approach road to the plaint 'A' schedule property. Hence, the road 'RRR' is absolutely necessary to reach 'A' schedule property. The plaintiffs have right to use the said 'RRR' road without any let or hindrance from anybody.

(3.) It is contended that the defendant No.1 is claiming to be the owner of certain lands adjacent to the schedule properties. The defendant No.2 is the father-in-law of defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 is a rich, powerful and influential man and he is not in good terms with the plaintiff No.1. The defendant No.2 being a G.P.A. holder of defendant No.1, has filed a frivolous suit against the plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.124/1994, in which the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have claimed the relief of permanent injunction in respect of portion of 'B' schedule property. The purpose of filing of the said suit was to close the public road 'RRR'. In O.S.No.124/1994, the Court had directed both the parties to maintain status-quo, until further orders. The Court had also issued the commission and Court Commissioner had filed a report, which revealed the existence of road in 'B' schedule and attempt of closing the said road by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendant No.2 in the said suit i.e., Government had filed written statement admitting the existence of public road.