M.S. BASAVARAJA Vs. G.H. HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration to declare that he has got the right of easement of necessity over the suit schedule road and for the consequential relief is that, except the suit schedule said 30 feet road, he has no access to reach his house for better enjoyment and he has got right of easement of necessity over the suit schedule road.

(3.) The defendants also filed the written statement and apart from that, the defendants also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a), (d) and (f) read with Ss. 9 and 151 of CPC read with Sec. 216 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 contending that the plaintiff is having an alternative road. When such being the case, the plaintiff cannot seek for the relief of easementary right and no cause of action arises for the suit and the suit itself is not tenable and not maintainable in view of the bar created by Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. It is also contended that the plaintiff has sought for the relief of permanent injunction which cannot be granted against the defendants owing to the averments made in the plaint having regard to the public road dispute that too, alleging defendants are trying to encroach the road. Hence, even the suit is also not maintainable.