Bengaluru: After nearly two years of frustration over blocked access to his property, 62-year-old Sridharan S of Koramangala’s 8th Block has finally found relief in court. The civil judge and judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) in KR Pura recently ruled in his favour, directing his neighbour to remove construction debris that had been obstructing access to Sridharan’s land.Sridharan and his brother, S Bhaskar, had purchased the property in Varthur village in 1987 through a registered sale deed. In Aug 2022, Bhaskar executed a registered deed of release, transferring full ownership rights to Sridharan, who has since been paying property taxes in his name.According to the suit filed on Oct 11, 2023, Sridharan alleged that his neighbour, Ramesh Reddy, 61, of Varthur, began dumping construction debris near the property, blocking access and interfering with his possession.Sridharan alleged that Reddy, who owns the adjoining plot, acquired through a partition deed dated Dec 6, 2022, raised his land level by dumping construction debris, elevating it by nearly 10ft. Sridharan claimed that this caused rainwater to flow onto his property, obstructing natural drainage and flooding his land. He also argued that the debris blocked a private mud road used for ingress and egress, hindering access to his property. According to the plaintiff, some of the debris even encroached on his land, directly interfering with his lawful possession.While Sridharan alleged deliberate obstruction and flooding caused by the neighbouring property, the defence presented by Reddy’s counsel — though no written statement was filed — was that he had acted within his rights as the owner of the adjoining plot. The defendant argued that raising the elevation of his land was part of routine development and landscaping, and that any water flowing onto the plaintiff’s property was the result of natural seepage and the area’s topography, not deliberate obstruction.However, despite appearing in court through counsel, Reddy did not file any evidence or cross-examine Sridharan. He also failed to produce documentary proof to support his claim of lawful development. The court noted that the absence of evidence from the defendant left Sridharan’s version of events — supported by sale deeds, the deed of release, partition documents, RTCs, and photographic evidence — unchallenged and credible.Civil judge Vishwanath Savadi observed that Sridharan had established lawful ownership and peaceful possession of the property. The court found that Reddy’s act of dumping construction debris interfered with Sridharan’s access to his land, resulting in obstruction, nuisance, and flooding. It also noted that a property owner with a genuine apprehension of interference is entitled to legal protection.The judge ordered that Sridharan be granted both a permanent and a mandatory injunction. The permanent injunction restrains Reddy, his agents, and anyone claiming under him from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession. The mandatory injunction directs Reddy to remove all construction debris from both his property and the access road used by Sridharan, ensuring clear and unhindered access to the plaintiff’s land.QUOTEThe acts of the defendant not only interfere with the plaintiff’s possession but also obstruct the access road leading to the suit property. In the absence of any rebuttal or contradictory material, this court finds no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff’s version that he lawfully purchased the property and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as on the date of filing of the suit
