Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The learned judge of the first appellate court in paragraph 31 of the judgment has discussed about the possibility of creating and providing ingress and aggress for the plaintiff either in Survey No.99/13 or 99/14 cannot be ruled out as Ayeshabi, was its previous owner and the same was exchanged in favour of Shanbhog vide dated 3.9.1956, and that such existence of road, according to the trial court, is in accordance with the sketch prepared by the Commissioner of Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR, for short). The case of the defendants is that there is a road lying on the western edge of Survey No.99/13.

25. Varadaraj-PW-3 knows the plaintiff and the defendants and has spoken about the existence of the right of way as shown in the letters 'RRR.' It is his case that he had transported the household articles near Vasudev Pal's place.

26. Yallappa-PW-4 was working in ADLR Office at Mangaluru. Ex.P-2 is the nakashe (map) of Kolur village and Ex.P-2(a) is the certified copy and the same had been produced by him. He is also not cross-examined and therefore, the contents of Ex.P-2 cannot be denied.

27. Lokesh Achar was the village accountant of Kolur village and has got marked Ex.P-31 which depicts the field of entire Survey NO.99. Ex.P-32 is a copy of the licence issued by the Municipal Corporation, Mangaluru, to the 1st defendant on 22.11.1990. It is supported by the map furnished by the 1st defendant himself vide Ex.P-33. While putting up a house, he has shown existence of a road on the eastern side. When the court commissioner Sri Inavalli went to the spot and inspected in the presence of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant, there was no road in existence in Survey No.99/13. Even when he visited the spot for the second time at the instance of the court, there was no road as such in Survey No.99/13. This aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the learned trial judge in the earlier judgment as well as the latter judgment. The earlier commissioner's report is marked as Ex.C-1 in which the court commissioner has mentioned about the road as an access to the plaintiff's property up to the public road i.e. Kolur Ferry road. Ex.C- 1 depicts that there is a direct approach to the defendant's property from Kolur-Ferry Road and the commissioner- ADLR had also submitted a report with a sketch in which it is shown that Adarshnagar is to the south of 'A' and 'B' schedule property and the existence of the road is shown in Survey No.99/12B. This report is not objected to by the parties.

36. DW-1 who is the son of the 1st defendant, has specifically admitted that he was present when the ADLR visited the spot and that he (ADLR) did not ask him anything about the road on the western side of Survey No.99/13. He has admitted that there is a compound wall in between Survey Nos.99/12 and 99/13 and that there is an old mango tree adjacent to the side wall and also few coconut trees. He has admitted that inEx.D12, it is not shown that the road runs in Survey No.99/13. He has admitted that in Ex.D7, the road spoken to by him is not shown. He has admitted that his father purchased the property from Sheikh Golal, and that the plaintiff has put up a gate on either side of the gate, stone pillars are erected.