Access Must Meet Agricultural Necessities, Not Mere Pedestrian Use: Karnataka High Court Modifies Easement Width from 3 to 6 Feet

“When Plaintiffs Are Agriculturists, A Mere Three-Foot Pathway Is Not Practical for Bullock Carts or Transport of Produce” –  In a key ruling addressing the scope of easementary rights of necessity, the Karnataka High Court clarified that easement access must be reasonable, not merely symbolic, especially when the dominant tenement is agricultural land. Modifying the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, the High Court held that a 6-feet wide pathway was justified, rather than the 3-feet granted by the Trial and First Appellate Courts.

The case arose from a long-standing land access dispute where the plaintiffs sought declaration of easement of necessity and permanent injunction over a 10-feet wide road passing through the defendant’s land. The courts below acknowledged the plaintiffs’ right but found 10 feet excessive and restricted the width to just 3 feet.

Justice Rajesh Rai K, hearing the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, framed the core question:

“Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in restricting the easement of necessity to the appellants only by granting 3 feet width road?”

The Court answered in the negative.

Easement of Necessity Must Consider Purpose and Use of Dominant Land

Justice Rajesh Rai K noted that it was undisputed that the plaintiffs had no alternate access to their lands in Sy.Nos.95/1A and 95/1A2, and that the PQRS road was the only available approach route, situated on the southern boundary of the defendant’s land.

While the lower courts found the plaintiffs entitled to an easement of necessity, they limited the width to 3 feet, seemingly presuming pedestrian access to be sufficient.

However, the High Court took a more context-sensitive approach, observing:

“The plaintiffs contended that they are in cultivation of their property and there is no ingress or egress except the schedule road even for simple transportation of agricultural products and carrying on agricultural activities. In such circumstance, even for access of bullock cart, 6 feet road is essentially required.”

Rejecting the mechanical approach of the courts below, the High Court held:

“Easement of necessity must be gauged based on reasonable necessity—not minimal access. The right is not to be reduced to a mere ritual formality when the dominant tenement is agricultural and practical transport of goods is involved.”

Sketch Confirmed Absence of Alternate Route – Commissioner’s Report Supported Plaintiffs

The court also took into consideration the commissioner’s report, which confirmed that there was no access to the plaintiffs’ land from any other direction, and thus the PQRS road was indeed the only route. Although the plaintiffs had originally demanded a 10-foot access path, the High Court found 6 feet to be more in line with practicality and necessity, especially for bullock cart or small agricultural vehicle use.

It further held that neither registered deeds nor absence of mention of access in historical documents could defeat a claim based on necessity, provided it was proven through evidence and circumstance, which the plaintiffs had succeeded in doing.

Judgment and Decree Modified – 6 Feet Pathway Granted

Allowing the appeal partly, the High Court modified the earlier decree as follows:

“It is declared that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to have easement right of necessity over suit schedule property for a pathway/walkway measuring width of 6 feet north-south and 183 feet towards east to west mentioned as PQRS in the plaint annexed sketch.”

The rest of the trial court’s decree, including the injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the pathway, remained undisturbed.

Easement Law Must Balance Rights with Functionality

This decision affirms a practical and rights-based approach to easement law, especially in rural and agricultural contexts. The High Court’s intervention underscores that easementary access should not be illusory or merely symbolic—it must serve the functional purpose of the dominant land, particularly when the land is used for cultivation and transport of produce.

By adjusting the width from 3 to 6 feet, the Court recognized that rights of necessity are rooted in reasonable human need, not abstract legal minimums.

Date of Decision: 05 December 2025