JUDGMENT : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. The captioned appeal is by the defendants who have challenged the judgment and decree rendered by the Court below in O.S.No.1947/2017, wherein trial Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit and defendants are directed to remove the obstruction caused in the suit schedule property and restore schedule 'B' property. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: Plaintiffs instituted a suit alleging that defendants are causing obstruction and are blocking access to the plaintiffs property which is referred as Schedule 'A' property. Plaintiffs are asserting title to an extent of 35 guntas in Sy.No.13/5 which is morefully described in schedule to plaint as Schedule 'A' property. Plaintiffs assert that they purchased Schedule 'A' property under registered sale deed dated 16.10.1991 from one Yaken Shah, who is the father of the defendants. The portion that is purchased by plaintiffs is on the southern side and the northern portion is retained by the defendants facing the northern road. Plaintiffs have further specifically pleaded that they purchased the southern portion which is referred as schedule 'A' property with an intention to develop the same to get it converted for residential purpose. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that the original Sy.No.13/5 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas is abutting to Kundalahalli to Hoodi Main Road. Therefore, plaintiffs have specifically contended that defendants' father having sold Schedule 'A' property has provided access to the main road by providing a road which is a 25 feet width road and which runs North to South connecting the northern road. The plaintiffs have also specifically stated that this North-South road which runs through defendants' remaining property is located on the northern side of plaintiffs' schedule 'A' property. The present suit is instituted by the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants, acting in a highhanded manner, have unlawfully obstructed and blocked their access to the suit property. It is contended that the said obstruction has resulted in the plaintiffs being denied their rightful access. Hence, the plaintiffs have been constrained to file the present suit seeking appropriate reliefs. On receipt of summons, the defendants have tendered appearance and have filed written statement. The defendants have stoutly denied the allegations made in the plaint. It is contended that the said obstruction has resulted in the plaintiffs being denied their rightful access. Hence, the plaintiffs have been constrained to file the present suit seeking appropriate reliefs. On receipt of summons, the defendants have tendered appearance and have filed written statement. The defendants have stoutly denied the allegations made in the plaint. The defendants while disputing the plaintiff's right to have access through the northern portion that is owned by defendants have seriously disputed the existence of North-South Road in their northern portion retained by their father. Defendants on the contrary have contended that the road provided to the plaintiffs runs East-West and not North-South. The plaintiffs and defendants, in support of their respective claims, have adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Upon evaluation of the same, the Trial Court has concluded that the plaintiffs have successfully established their claim of having acquired a right of easement over Schedule ‘B’ property by way of grant. While answering Issue No.2 in the affirmative, the Trial Court further held that the plaintiffs have proved that the defendants have unlawfully obstructed the existing access road passing through Schedule ‘B’ property. Accordingly, the suit has been decreed, granting the relief of mandatory injunction, and consequently, a decree of perpetual injunction has also been passed, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' right of access to reach the Northern road. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the sale deed clearly delineates the plaintiffs' southern property and the portion retained by the defendants by reference to a road. It is argued that this road runs in an East-West direction and not North-South, as claimed by the plaintiffs. Drawing the Court’s attention to certain admissions elicited during the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, he submitted that the existence of an East-West road demarcating the respective properties is substantiated during trial. On this basis, it is his contention that the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issue Nos.1 and 2 are perverse and contrary to the material on record. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs sought to justify the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court. He placed strong reliance on the conversion order secured by the plaintiffs, which is marked as Ex.P-17, and contended that this document is pivotal in resolving the controversy. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs sought to justify the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court. He placed strong reliance on the conversion order secured by the plaintiffs, which is marked as Ex.P-17, and contended that this document is pivotal in resolving the controversy. Referring to the sketch annexed to the conversion order, and relying further on the photographs produced by the defendants themselves at Ex.D-56, he argued that these documents collectively establish that the road in question, located in the northern portion retained by the defendants, runs in a North-South direction and not East-West. Therefore, he submitted that the findings of the Trial Court are fully supported by the evidence on record and warrant no interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the defendants and learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. The following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the finding of the trial Court that plaintiffs have acquired right to easement over schedule 'B' property by way of grant suffers from perversity and warrants interference? (ii) Whether the finding of the trial Court that plaintiffs have further proved that defendants have blocked the road existing in schedule 'B' property, suffers from perversity and warrants interference? Finding on Point Nos.(i) and (ii): 7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have purchased the southern portion of land bearing Sy.No.13/5, measuring 35 guntas out of total extent of 1 acre 35 guntas. The portion so purchased by the plaintiffs is referred to as Schedule 'A' property. The remaining northern portion, which was retained by the defendants’ father at the time of executing the sale deed, is referred to as Schedule 'B' property. The plaintiffs’ primary case is that while selling the Schedule 'A' property, the defendants’ father had provided a road through the retained northern portion, i.e., Schedule 'B' property, to facilitate access to the main road located on the northern side. Thus, the road lies within the Schedule 'B' property. 8. The core issue in dispute between the parties does not pertain to the existence of a road per se between the properties. Rather, the dispute centres around the orientation and alignment of the said road specifically, whether the road runs in an East-West direction, as contended by the defendants, or in a North-South direction, as asserted by the plaintiffs. 9. The core issue in dispute between the parties does not pertain to the existence of a road per se between the properties. Rather, the dispute centres around the orientation and alignment of the said road specifically, whether the road runs in an East-West direction, as contended by the defendants, or in a North-South direction, as asserted by the plaintiffs. 9. In support of their claim, the plaintiffs have placed strong reliance on the conversion order issued in their favour, dated 24.08.2009, which is marked at Ex.P-17. The sketch appended to the said conversion order clearly depicts the existence of a road traversing the Schedule 'B' property in a North-South direction. This crucial document forms the bedrock of the plaintiffs’ case. It effectively contradicts the version put forth by the defendants regarding the East-West alignment of the road. 10. It is also not in dispute that the defendants’ father had sold the southern portion being the hind portion of the entire Sy.No.13/5 to the plaintiffs, while retaining the northern portion abutting the main road. Given this layout, what requires close scrutiny is whether, at the time of alienating the Schedule 'A' property, the vendor, defendants’ father had provided for a road or passage over the retained portion for access. Though the recitals in the sale deed may not contain an express stipulation regarding the grant of a road, the circumstances and the layout of the land suggest that such a road did exist and was intended to serve as access to the main road on the northern side. 11. When Ex.P-17 (conversion order) is read in conjunction with Ex.D-56 (photographs produced by the defendants themselves), the controversy regarding the orientation of the road is conclusively addressed. A careful examination of these documents reveals that the road situated within the Schedule 'B' property indeed runs in a North-South direction. Further, the geographical context and surrounding private properties indicate that the land is landlocked, thereby reinforcing the plausibility of the road running North-South rather than East-West. This natural alignment is further corroborated by the fact that the defendants’ retained property has direct access to the northern public road, making it reasonable to infer that the access provided to the plaintiffs would be along a North- South corridor. 12. This natural alignment is further corroborated by the fact that the defendants’ retained property has direct access to the northern public road, making it reasonable to infer that the access provided to the plaintiffs would be along a North- South corridor. 12. Therefore, the contention advanced by the defendants that the road runs East-West appears to be both incorrect and misleading and an clear attempt to obstruct the plaintiffs’ access. The Trial Court has meticulously appreciated these critical facts and has rightly recorded its findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. 13. This Court, upon an independent reappraisal of the pleadings, oral testimony, and documentary evidence on record, more particularly the sketch appended to the conversion order at Ex.P-19 and the photographs marked at Ex.D-56 finds that the Trial Court’s conclusion is well- founded. These materials conclusively establish that the road traversing the Schedule 'B' property runs in a North- South direction. The contention of the defendants that the road runs East-West does not withstand scrutiny and is contrary to documentary evidence. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit. The appellants have made a feeble and unconvincing attempt to dispute the existence and orientation of the North-South road situated within the property retained by their father. In view of the overwhelming evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs, and the sound reasoning adopted by the Trial Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 as framed above are answered in the Negative. 15. Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.