JUDGMENT 1. This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3. 2. This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.5900/2022 on I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC questioning the allowing of the application and rejecting the application filed by the appellants i.e., I.A.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Sec. 151 of CPC. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction praying the Court to grant an order of injunction, interalia sought for an order to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody else claiming through them from preventing the plaintiffs from using the road marked as DEFG in the rough sketch to gain access to the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to by plaintiff No.3 that plaintiff No.1 is her father and plaintiff No.2 is her brother. The agricultural land situated in Sy.No.41/3 Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore which is fully described in the schedule to the plaint and referred to as "suit schedule property", is the ancestral and joint family property of herself, her father and brother. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that in the family partition, her father was allotted the suit schedule property and another half portion in the same survey number is allotted to the share of Kempanna, the uncle of his father. The said Kempanna converted his property for non-agricultural for transport purpose. The defendants have purchased the property from the said Kempanna. The suit schedule property and the property allotted to the share of Kempanna, the uncle of her father is totally measuring 1 acre 21 guntas. Since time immemorial, their ancestors had been gaining access to the said land from Bengaluru-Ballary main road through the adjacent land which are also purchased by defendant No.1. After the partition between Kempanna and her father, they were also gaining access to the suit schedule property through the said road. Except the said road there is no other road to gain access to the suit schedule property. After the partition between Kempanna and her father, they were also gaining access to the suit schedule property through the said road. Except the said road there is no other road to gain access to the suit schedule property. Now the said road DEFG is formed with asphalted (Bitumen) road. 4. It is contended that they have acquired easementary right over the said road marked as DEFG and they have every right to continue to use the said road. The defendants who have purchased the surrounding properties including the property of Kempanna had been running school near the schedule property. The defendants are using the property purchased from Kempanna for parking their school buses and other vehicles and they have no other road except the road marked as DEFG in the rough sketch to gain access to the suit schedule property. In the current academic year 2022-2023, the defendants have shifted their school to some other place. Thereby, the defendants have been using the said road marked as DEFG in the rough sketch rarely. After shifting their school, often and often the defendants have been obstructing them from using the said road. They tolerated the same hoping that the defendants may mend themselves and stop their obstructions. But on 6/9/2022, the defendants have deployed their employee to prevent them from using the said road as usual. Hence, they were compelled to approach the jurisdictional police to lodge complaint. But, the said police refused to receive the complaint. Now, they learnt that the defendants have been planning to close the said road DEFG by putting permanent compound wall. In such an event, they will be deprived of their easementary right of the only way to gain access to the suit schedule property. While going to and coming from the suit schedule property, the employees of the defendants have been trying to prevent them from using the said road alleging that the defendants have instructed them to prevent them from using the said road. Hence, they filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction, interalia sought for temporary injunction. 5. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement and also statement of objections and also filed an application to vacate the interim order granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The claim of the defendants is that the plaintiffs have managed to secure the exparte interim order based on misrepresentation. 5. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement and also statement of objections and also filed an application to vacate the interim order granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The claim of the defendants is that the plaintiffs have managed to secure the exparte interim order based on misrepresentation. The plaintiffs have placed incorrect information by misstating the actual facts. The plaintiffs have not used the suit road marked as DEFG in the rough sketch. The plaintiffs have acquired the easementary right and there is no access for the suit property. It is contended that one Sri A. Ramakrishna S/o Anjenayachar is the absolute owner and is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property having acquired the same by registered sale deed dtd. 20/12/2019 for valuable sale consideration, executed by the plaintiffs, through their general power of attorney Sri D.S. Deshpande. It is further contended that prior to execution of the sale deed in favour of Sri A. Ramakrishna, the plaintiffs were in need of money for their family legal necessities and were looking at selling the suit schedule property. In view of the same, they executed on Aide- Memorie with Sri H.R. Chandrashekar on 9/11/1998 and paid a sum of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 by cash and cheque towards part payment of sale consideration amount. It is contended that the total sale consideration of the suit schedule property as per the terms of the Aide-Memorie was fixed at Rs.14, 34, 375.00. However, after the execution of the Aide-Memoire, the parties again revisited the actual value of the suit schedule property and revised the same and fixed the total sale consideration with regard to the schedule property at Rs.8, 00, 000.00. Therefore, on 2/12/1998, the plaintiffs entered into another agreement of sale with Sri H.R. Chandrashekar and paid substantial amount of Rs.4, 34, 375.00 towards part sale consideration. Subsequent to the execution of the agreement of sale, on the same day, in terms of the said transaction, the plaintiffs had also executed a receipt in favour of H.R. Chandrashekar in respect of the schedule property. The defendants have stated that the entire contention in the written statement of the application. Subsequent to the execution of the agreement of sale, on the same day, in terms of the said transaction, the plaintiffs had also executed a receipt in favour of H.R. Chandrashekar in respect of the schedule property. The defendants have stated that the entire contention in the written statement of the application. It is stated that the plaintiffs mislead the Court by concealing the facts and the allegations made in the plaint are denied and only with an intention to secure the interim order, they have filed the present suit even though O.S.No.2958/2020 was pending. The plaintiffs also filed statement of objection to I.A. filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. 6. The Trial Court having heard the respective learned counsel, formulated point Nos.1 to 4 with regard to prima facie case made out as prayed in I.A.No.1, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is concerned and taken note of both the pleadings and the documents produced before the Court. The Trial Court also taken note of the contention of the plaintiffs that the sale deed dtd. 29/12/2019 is a created document and also taken note of the defence of the defendants and comes to the conclusion that when there is no any other alternative road, the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case of easementary right to gain access to the schedule property. There is no material evidence placed on record to show that the plaintiffs are having alternative road to reach their property as shown in the rough sketch. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie and granted an order of injunction. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the defendants before this Court. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no dispute that earlier the property belonged to one Chennappa and he had two sons by name, Nanjappa and Kempanna. Kempanna sold the property in favour of the appellants and they are running a school. The learned counsel would contend that the other son Nanjappa entered into a agreement of sale and thereafter executed a power of attorney and the power of attorney holder executed the sale deed in the year 2019 i.e., on 20/12/2019. Kempanna sold the property in favour of the appellants and they are running a school. The learned counsel would contend that the other son Nanjappa entered into a agreement of sale and thereafter executed a power of attorney and the power of attorney holder executed the sale deed in the year 2019 i.e., on 20/12/2019. The learned counsel would contend that challenging the said sale transaction, a suit is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2958/2020 and the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction, which is numbered as O.S.No.5900/2022. The learned counsel would contend that in the earlier suit O.S.No.2958/2020, nothing is stated with regard to they are having easementary right. In the present suit it is contended that they are having easementary right. The learned counsel contends that when the suit is filed for bare injunction without seeking any relief of declaration to grant easementary right, the question of granting an order of injunction without seeking the better relief of declaration to declare that they are having easementary right, the very suit is not maintainable and the said fact has not been considered by the Trial Court. The learned counsel would contend that granting an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs curtails the right of the appellants and arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case is erroneous. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of the argument relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in MFA No.5550/2019 dtd. 22/7/2019 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.3, wherein an observation is made that if according to the plaintiff, there exist a road on which he can impose right of usage, he must establish right of easement. The suit for bare injunction, without seeking declaration with respect to easement right is not maintainable and hence comes to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3 would vehemently contend that according to their claim there was a sale agreement in the year 1989 i.e., in favour of one Chandrashekar and subsequently power of attorney was also executed on 30/11/1998 and based on the said power of attorney, said sale deed was executed in 2019. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3 would vehemently contend that according to their claim there was a sale agreement in the year 1989 i.e., in favour of one Chandrashekar and subsequently power of attorney was also executed on 30/11/1998 and based on the said power of attorney, said sale deed was executed in 2019. The learned counsel submits that the power of attorney was not properly stamped and also proceedings was initiated and paid the stamp duty subsequently. The learned counsel would contend that there is no dispute with regard to the existence of road. The sketch, which is annexed to the plaint is clear that the said road is in existence and the same is not disputed by the defendants in their written statement. The learned counsel would contend that the same belongs to them. The learned counsel would contend that it is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs are having any other alternative road to access their property. When there is no any other alternative road, the plaintiffs cannot be prevented by using that road and very specific pleading is made in the plaint that they are using that road even before partition and after partition also they are using the same and the same has been taken note of by the Trial Court in granting an order of temporary injunction and hence it does not require interference of this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3 also relied upon the judgment which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.2, wherein it is observed that in a suit for bare injunction with respect to road providing access to land in Sy.No.215, the plaintiff has brought this suit. The Trial Court dismissed the application giving a finding that there is no prima facie material that shows a road being in existence on the western side of Sy.No.215. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that wherein there is no road in existence and the same is formulated by the Trial Court. In the case on hand, there is no dispute with regard to road is in existence and the same is not disputed by the defendants and hence the order passed by this Court is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 11. In the case on hand, there is no dispute with regard to road is in existence and the same is not disputed by the defendants and hence the order passed by this Court is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 11. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the relief sought in the suit is for bare injunction to grant the permanent injunction and interalia sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from using the road marked as DEFG to gain access to the suit property from Bengaluru- Ballary main road. Now there is a dispute with regard to purchase of the property in respect of the plaintiffs is concerned. There is no dispute that the property originally belonged to Chennappa and he had two sons and there was a partition between them and equally they divided the property. The plaintiffs also not disputes that the defendants have purchased the property from Kempanna, but the dispute is with regard to the sale of the property of the plaintiffs and they have already filed a suit for the relief of declaration with regard to the sale deed dtd. 20/12/2019. It is also not in dispute that the said suit is pending. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that instead of seeking relief in the said suit, a separate suit is filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that in the said suit these defendants are not parties to the proceedings. Only when the defendants tried to interfere with use of the said road, he was made to file a separate suit seeking relief of permanent injunction. On perusal of the plaint averment, they sought for an order of permanent injunction against the defendants and no relief is sought for better relief of granting easementary right as pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants. But the fact is that rough sketch is produced before the Trial Court in the said suit and the road is shown as DEFG which is in existence and the same is also not disputed by the defendants with regard to the existence of the said road, but claims that the same belongs to them and the same is within the property which they have acquired. There is also no dispute that the plaintiffs are having the property which is marked as ABCD in the said sketch and other portion which has been purchased belongs to the other brother and the plaintiff i.e., ADGHI and no dispute with regard to the property is located as contended in the plaint. The plaintiffs' property is having only one access road i.e., DEFG and there is no any other alternative road to gain access to the property of the plaintiffs. 12. The Trial Court having considered this aspect into consideration, in paragraph No.20 comes to the conclusion that the material placed by the plaintiffs on record is sufficient to show that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case of easementary right of way to gain access to the suit property and there is no material before the Court that the plaintiffs are having any other alternative road. It has to be noted that the suit is filed with regard to declaration in respect of the property which the plaintiffs are claiming right and also denying the very transaction. The present suit is filed when obstruction was caused and cause of action has also been pleaded that on specific date, the defendants tried to obstruct the plaintiffs in accessing the said road. When such being the material on record, the Court has to take note of the same. The Trial Court rightly taken note of the said fact into consideration i.e., prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiffs that there is no any other alternative road to the plaintiffs to access and gain entry to their property. The very contention of the appellants is that the order of this Court passed in MFA No.5550/2019 dtd. 22/7/2019 is applicable to the case on hand. No doubt, this Court has observed that when the right is claimed for usage, he must establish right of easement. But in the case on hand, admittedly there is a road and no other alternative road in respect of the property of the plaintiffs. 13. It is not in dispute that originally the property belongs to one Chennappa and the sons divided the property and the plaintiff is also one of the son of Chennappa's son and both of them are using the said road which is in existence and the same is asphalted as observed. 13. It is not in dispute that originally the property belongs to one Chennappa and the sons divided the property and the plaintiff is also one of the son of Chennappa's son and both of them are using the said road which is in existence and the same is asphalted as observed. When such being the case, when the road is in existence, the finding of this Court with regard to seeking the relief of easement will not come to the aid of the appellants since in paragraph No.2, the Court made an observation that the Trial Court dismissed the application giving a finding that there is no prima facie material that shows a road being in existence on the western side of Sy.No.215. The Court has to take note of the factual averments of the case and each facts and circumstances of the case also to be looked into while granting the discretionary relief of injunction and the Court has to exercise the discretion while granting the interim order. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in granting the discretionary relief in favour of the plaintiffs in coming to the conclusion that there is no any alternative road to the plaintiffs to gain access to their property. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within one year from today. (iii) The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court while considering the matter on merits. (iv) The respective learned counsel and the respective parties are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within the stipulated period.