AIR 2012 KARNATAKA 145 ::2012 (4) AIR Kar R 52 ::(2012) 5 Kant LJ 659 ::(2013) 2 ICC 365 ::(2012) 3 KCCR 2182 ::(2013) 121 AllIndCas 851 (KAR)

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. N. Venugopala Gowda , J

(A) Easements Act (5 of 1882) , S.13— Easementary right of way - Whether easement of grant or easement of necessity - Determination - Portion of property situated between 3rd Cross Road and 4th Cross Road - Despite noticing that, there were two ways, one to reach Main Road 3rd Cross and another to reach 4th Cross, which was shorter way, High Court in earlier appeal found that purchaser of land was justified in not accepting suggestion to use 4th Cross, because of Municipal drain coming in between - Thus, purchaser was enabled to use path way in dispute and opposite party was directed to remove obstruction caused - Finding that easementary right in question was not an easement of necessity, which meant that, it was an easement of grant - Judgment attained finality - In view of categorical finding, easementary right claimed held to be by way of grant. (Para 13) (B) Easements Act (5 of 1882) , S.41, S.13— Applicability of S. 41 - Easementary right to way - Easementary right under consideration was by necessary implication - Easementary right by grant or by necessity falling under S. 13 of Act, even though it may also be an absolute necessity for person in whose favour grant had been made by express or even by necessary implication - In spite of being made known of alternative access to purcha....