1 of 11
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NARSAMPET
Wednesday this the 13TH day of May, 2026
Present: Sri.P.Giridhar, Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl Judicial Magistrate Of First Class Narsampet
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.108 of 2025
Between:
Banoth Manohar, S/o. Balya, Age 36 Yrs, Occp: Employee, R/o. H.No. 10-12, Eerya Thanda, Chennarao pet Revenue Village and Mandal of Warangal district. …. Plaintiff
And
Banoth Kishtu, S/o. Dasru, Age about 44 Yrs, Occp: Agriculture, R/o.H.No. 10- 18/D, Eerya Thanda, Chennarao pet Revenue Village and Mandal of Warangal district. …. Defendant *******
Date of Hearing08 .05.2026
Date of Judgment 13.05.2026
Counsel for PlaintiffSri. G.Suresh
Counsel for DefendantSet exparte
Upon perusing the material borne on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
➢ INDEX
Sl.no. Part Page no 1Prayer2 2Plaintiffs Averments2-3 3 Defendants Averments4 4 Trial4 5Points for determination4 6Analysis4-10 7Conclusion10 2 of 11 8Suit schedule property 11 9Evidence 11
1) Prayer
The present suit in hand is filed by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
a) Pass Decree and Judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant and his yes- men protecting the easementary rights of plaintiff in usage of existed 13 feet wide way i.e., schedule property & delineated in the annexed map to ingress and egress to the house No. 10-12 of plaintiff;
b) Consequently direct the defendant, his yes-men not to interfere/obstruct the plaintiff in usage of existed 13 feet wide way i.e., schedule property to ingress and egress to the house bearing No. 10-12 of plaintiff
2) Plaintiff Averments 2.1) It is submitted that, the father of plaintiff, one Mr. Balya, has constructed the house bearing no. 10-12, approximately 40 years ago and ever since then, he has been in the possession of the said property.
2.2) Further, the plaintiff submits that, the said property was gifted by his father to him vide a registered gift deed and since then, the said house has been in the possession of the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff is said to be in the possession of the said property.
(In support of the said contention the plaintiff has got the said gift deed exhibited as Ex- A1) 2.3) It is submitted that, in order to reach the said house of the plaintiff, there is only one way, i.e. the suit schedule described 13 feet wide way and the same is said to be used by the plaintiff and his father, for a period about 40 years till the 3 of 11 date of filing of the suit, the only mode of ingress and egress to the said house property.
2.4) It is further submitted that, while the things stood so, the defendant herein, who is also the relative and neighbour to the present plaintiff herein have begun cause troubles to the plaintiff and his family, in using the said 13 feet wide way, by placing various objects and continued to do so, despite repeated requests of the plaintiff.
(In support of the said contention the plaintiff has got the photographs exhibited as
Ex- A4) 2.5) Regarding the same, the plaintiff has also lodged a police complaint, at P.S.
Chennaraopet, on dt. 06.11.2024.
2.6) Further, the plaintiff herein has also called for a panchayat meeting before the village elders, who in-turn admonished the defendant herein and advised him to not to obstruct the plaintiff’s usage of the suit schedule property.
2.7) Despite several requests and failed attempts by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant, the defendant continued to do so. Two such incidents occurred on dates: 13.04.2025 and 29.04.2025, wherein the defendant did not just cause inconvenience to the plaintiff, but also threatened to occupy the suit schedule mentioned path way.
2.8) Left with no other option, the plaintiff herein have filed the present suit with the aforementioned prayer.
4 of 11
3) Defendants Averments:
Despite the summons being served sufficiently, the defendant herein has failed to appear before this court. Hence, they were set exparte on 29-10-2025.
4) Trial:
4.1)Since, the defendants were set exparte the matter was proceeded based on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff.
4.2)Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the evidence borne on record.
5) Points for determination:
5.1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the easementary and other reliefs as prayed for?
5.2)If entitled, to what extent?
6) Analysis:
6.1) Point No.5.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the easementary and other reliefs as prayed for?
For the plaintiff to be entitled to the above sought reliefs, he must first establish that there exists a valid easementary right in favor of him, with respect to the suit schedule property, as against the defendant. And whether the plaintiff was successful in establishing so or not, is clearly discussed hereunder:
6.1.1) It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the house bearing No.10-12 originally belonged to his father, Sri. Banoth Balya,who had constructed the same about 40 years ago and had been enjoying the same peacefully. It is further pleaded that the said property was subsequently remodeled and gifted to the 5 of 11 plaintiff under a registered gift deed and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
6.1.2) In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined himself and got marked the registered gift deed as Ex.A1, A perusal of Ex.A1 discloses the boundaries and description of the property conveyed in favour of the plaintiff.
6.1.3) The plaintiff further got marked the Mutation certificate no. 2107-1- 388/2025 as Ex.A2 andHouse tax receipts dated 10.02.1996, 28.01.2001, 26.11.2001, 06.06.2003, 09.08.2005, 06.05.2025 as Ex. A3(only one house tax receipt dt.06.05.2025 stands on the name of the plaintiff herein and the other such receipts stand on the name of the previous possessor/Sri. Banoth Balya), and in addition to the Ex.A1, the said documents exhibited support the possession of the plaintiff.
6.1.4) The plaintiff further contended that the said 13 feet wide pathway is the only means of ingress and egress to his house and that the same has been in continuous use by him and prior to him by his father for the last 40 years.
6.1.5) It is also alleged that the defendant started causing obstruction by placing various objects and is now threatening to occupy the pathway. In this context, the plaintiff relied upon Ex. A4, i.e. the photographs that are said to be taken at the suit schedule property and exhibited herein show certain objects being placed in the path way. However, this particular exhibit, do not sufficiently establish the claim that the defendant is completely interrupting the usage of the pathway or threatening the present plaintiff from not using it.
6 of 11 6.1.6) Though the plaintiff has pleaded easementary rights over the suit schedule pathway, the schedule and the location map of the Ex.A1, clearly describes the present schedule property/path way as Grampanchayat Road (referred by its acronym GP Road).
6.1.7) Interestingly, during the course of the arguments, upon being questioned by this court about the suit schedule property/13 feet path way leading to the house of plaintiff being shown as the Grampanchayat Road, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, has fairly admitted the same to be true, i.e. the learned counsel for plaintiff himself has admitted that the suit schedule property is a grampanchayat road.
6.1.8) In this context, this court would place its reliance upon the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ibrahimkutty Koyakutty V. Abdul Rahumankunju
Ibrahimkutty and others, reported in AIR 1993 KER 91, wherein it is observed in paragraph number 9 as hereunder:
“……...Suffice it to say, that ordinarily a court can find a case and decree the suit only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. In a case, where the claim is for an easement right, it is all the more necessary that the pleadings should be specific and precise. There is reason therefor. 'Easement is a precarious and special right. The right of easement is one which a person claims over a land which is not his won. The qualitative and quantitative requirement for the different kinds of easements are to a great extent mutually exclusive. That is the reason why the courts have always insisted that whenever a right of easement is claimed, the pleadings should be precise and clear and not vague." 7 of 11
Apart from seeking the protection and enforcement of easementary right in the prayer portion, the plaintiff has no where mentioned about the mode of acquisition of the easement right in his plaint, say, easement by prescription or easement by necessity or etc.
6.1.9) Further, at this juncture, it would be apposite to mention the definition of an easement as per the section 04 of The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Act no. 5 of 1882] hereunder:
4. “Easement” defined.—An easement is a right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that land, to do and continue to do something, or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done, in or upon, or in respect of, certain other land not his own.
Dominant and servient heritages and owners.—The land for the beneficial enjoyment of which the right exists is called the dominant heritage, and the owner or occupier thereof the dominant owner; the land on which the liability is imposed is called the servient heritage, and the owner or occupier thereof the servient owner.
Explanation.—In the first and second clauses of this section, the expression “land” includes also things permanently attached to the earth; the expression “beneficial enjoyment” includes also possible convenience, remote advantage, and even a mere amenity; and the expression “to do something” includes removal and appropriation by the dominant owner, for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant heritage, of any part of the soil of the servient heritage or anything growing or subsisting thereon.
6.1.10) Further, upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and going through the evidence borne on record, there is no valid servient owner/ servient tenement found in this case in hand. Even considering the contention of the 8 of 11 plaintiff that, he is the dominant owner, for an easement to exist appropriately there needs to be a servient tenement, upon which, any easement right, if available, shall be exercised. The same is found no where in this matter and the defendant arrayed herein is a mere neighbor and an alleged obstructor to the usage of the suit schedule property path, by the plaintiff. Hence, there can be no appropriate easement found in this case, that can be exercised by the plaintiff herein against the defendant. In other words, the plaintiff herein failed to establish that the defendant herein is the servient owner, as against him, with respect to the suit schedule property.
6.1.11) Now going back to the Ex.A1 by conjointly studying the same along with the admission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is clearly established that the aforementioned pathway is not a private pathway belonging to either of the parties, but a Grampanchayat road meant for public use. Once the pathway is admitted to be a public road vested with the Grampanchayat, the question of the plaintiff claiming easementary rights over the same against the defendant does not arise.
6.1.12) In the present case, as per the affidavits filed by the P.W.No.1 to 3, in lieu of the examination-in-chief, the defendant attempted to cause obstruction to the plaintiff’s usage of the pathway, which is the only way to access the house of the plaintiff and the same have remained unchallenged and unrebutted, as the defendant remained absent and was set exparte. Further, there is no material available on record to disbelieve the version of the case that is established by the plaintiff.
9 of 11 6.1.13) However, merely because the plaintiff cannot claim an exclusive easementary right over the schedule pathway, against the defendant it does not mean that the defendant can obstruct the plaintiff or interfere with his lawful usage of the suit schedule property pathway. Every member of the public, including the plaintiff and defendant, has equal right to use a public pathway for ingress and egress, subject to law.
6.1.14) Upon perusal of the evidence borne on record, it is also clearly established that, the present suit schedule property mentioned path is the only way available for the ingress and egress to the plaintiff, in order to access his house and hence the same needs to be protected, in order to enable the plaintiff to access his house.
6.1.15) Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that while the plaintiff is not entitled to protection of any easementary right over the suit schedule pathway, he is certainly entitled to protection against unlawful obstruction by the defendant in using the Grampanchayat road for ingress and egress to his house property.
6.1.16) Accordingly, Point No. 5.1 is answered partly in favour of the plaintiff.
6.2) Point 5.2) If entitled, to what extent?
6.2.1) In view of the findings recorded above, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled only to a limited relief of injunction restraining the defendant from unlawfully obstructing the plaintiff’s use of the suit schedule pathway, which is admittedly a Grampanchayat road.
10 of 11 6.2.2) However, the relief sought by the plaintiff for protection of alleged easementary rights over the suit schedule property cannot be granted, inasmuch as the very document relied upon by the plaintiff i.e., Ex.A1, establishes that the pathway is a public Grampanchayat road and not a private easement attached exclusively to the plaintiff’s property.
6.2.3) Accordingly, Point No. 5.2 is answered partly in favour of the plaintiff.
7) Conclusion:
In the result, the suit is partly decreed, in the following terms:
7.1) The defendant and his yes-men are hereby permanently restrained from unlawfully obstructing or interfering with the plaintiff’s usage of the existing 13 feet wide Grampanchayat road/ suit schedule property, for ingress and egress to the plaintiff’s house bearing No.10-12, situated at Eerya Thanda, Chennaraopet
Village and Mandal of Warangal District.
7.2) The relief sought by the plaintiff in respect of declaration/protection of exclusive easementary rights over the suit schedule pathway is hereby refused.
7.3) No order is being made as to the costs.
7.4) As a sequel, interlocutory applications connected to this suit, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the [13tht Day] of [ May], 2026).
Sd/-
Addl.Junior Civil Judge Narsampet.
11 of 11
8) Suit Schedule Property:
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that existed 13 feet wide way leads from the house bearing No.10-12 of plaintiff to CC Road, situated at R/o. Eerya Thanda, Chennarao pet Village and Mandai of Warangal district.
Boundaries as:
EAST: House No. 10-18/D of Banoth Kishtu (defendant herein)
WEST: open land of Banoth Somla
NORTH : House No. 10-12 with open place of plaintiff
SOUTH: Road leads to Chennaraopet to Konapuram
9) Evidence:
9.1)List of witnesses examined-
For plaintiffFor defendant
P.W.1: Banoth Manohar -nil-
P.W.2:G.Eerya
P.W.3:B.Lalu 9.2)List of exhibits marked-
For plaintiffFor defendant
A1Original Registered Gift Deed bearing -nil- Doc.No.388/2025 dt.21-01-2025.-
A2 Original certificate of transfer/mutation dt.24-01- 2025 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Narsampet.
A3Registered sale deed bearing No.595 of 2024, for “schedule B” of suit schedule property
A4Original photographs (3) (Typed, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the [13tht Day] of [ May], 2026).
Sd/-
Addl.Junior Civil Judge Narsampet.