Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 747

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
DR. S. KUMAR & ORS – Appellants
Versus
S. RAMALINGAM – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8628-8629 OF 2009
Decided On : 16-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sreegesh M.K., Adv. Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyam Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Mr. V. Prabhakar, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Parasher, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Rights of the parties are to be adjudicated on date of suit. Subsequent merger of title of two persons in one person by inheritance would be immaterial.
Right to passage granted to vendee in sale deed is not easement of necessity.

Headnote:(a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 48 - Longitudinal property abutting a main road sold to three persons - Roadside portion sold to defendant 1 - Next portion sold to defendant 2 - 12 ft passage shown by the side of portions of defendant 1 and 2 in their sale deeds - Last portion sold to plaintiff - Sale deed requiring him to maintain a 16 ft passage to the main road - Held, plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right to this passage - Use of the passage by defendant 2 not prejudicing the plaintiff - Held, defendant no 2 also has a right on this passage as per her sale deed. (Para 16)
       (b) Property law - Rights of the parties - To be adjudicated on date of suit - Subsequent merger of title of two persons in one person by inheritance - Immaterial. (Para 17)
       (c) Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 41 - Right to passage granted to vendee in sale deed - Not easement of necessity - Such right will not extinguish. (Para 19)
       Facts of the case:
       The plaintiff -respondent filed two suits, claiming an injunction against the defendants from using a pathway shown as A B C D in the plaint and claiming exclusive right to use the said path; and for restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from using the pathway to reach their land E F G H.
       The trial court dismissed the suits. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted injunction as prayed holding that there is no necessity of easement as the said defendant has access from the property of her husband. The High Court has maintained the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Defendant no 2 also has a right on the passage as per her sale deed.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with references:

The rights of the parties are to be determined based on their positions at the time of the suit; subsequent merger of titles through inheritance does not affect these rights. (!) (!)
The right to passage granted to a vendee in a sale deed is not considered an easement of necessity and does not extinguish upon the end of such necessity. (!) (!)
When a property is sold with a specific right of access, such as a passage, that right is intended for the joint use of the parties involved, and it cannot be exclusively conferred to one party if the sale deed indicates shared use. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The priority of rights created by transfer is governed by the sequence of creation and any reservations or special agreements. A later transfer cannot override earlier rights unless explicitly specified in a binding reservation or contract. (!) (!)
The mere relationship between parties, such as being spouses, does not negate the rights conferred by a sale deed regarding access or easements. Such rights are to be interpreted based on the terms of the sale deed and applicable legal principles. (!) (!)
The argument that easements of necessity are extinguished when such necessity ends is not applicable here, especially since the rights are based on specific sale deed provisions rather than on mere necessity. (!)
The rights granted in the sale deeds, particularly regarding passage, are to be reserved for joint use and cannot be exclusively assigned to one party if the documentation indicates shared access. (!) (!)
The rights and obligations of the parties are to be assessed as they existed at the time of the suit, regardless of subsequent inheritance or transfer events. (!) (!)
The legal interpretation of the sale deeds and the rights therein supports that the passage is a common right for both defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff, and no exclusive rights can be claimed by either side contrary to the terms of the sale deeds. (!) (!)

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these points.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The defendants are in appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on March 6, 2007, whereby judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court was not interfered with in the second appeal.

2. The plaintiff -respondent filed two suits, firstly, OS No. 2251 of 1985 claiming an injunction against the defendants from using a pathway shown as A B C D in the plaint and claiming exclusive right to use the said path. Another suit OS No. 9158 of 1986 was filed restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from using the pathway to reach their land E F G H.

3. The learned trial court dismissed the suits on April 22, 1991 holding the defendants have right of necessity of access to their property over the pathway A B C D in the first suit. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on September 16, 1993 and granted injunction as prayed holding that there is no necessity of easement as the said defendant has access from the property of her husband which is on Mowbrays Road. The High Court has maintained the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated March 6, 2007.

4. The facts leading to the present appeal are that one C.L. Rajasekaran was the owner of big chunk of land on Mowbrays Road in the city of Chennai. He executed three separate sale deeds on different dates. The first sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 1 B. Shivaraman on December 5, 1973 in respect of property measuring 3483.66 sq. feet. Another adjoining land was purchased by Lakshmi Shivaraman, wife of defendant No. 1, vide separate sale deed dated April 1, 1976, in respect of land measuring 1062 sq. feet. The plaintiff entered into an agreement for purchase of land measuring 3525 sq. feet with C.L. Rajasekaran on May 13, 1978 but the sale deed was executed on May 31, 1988 after a decree in a suit for specific performance was granted.

5. The sale of land to defendant No. 1 is abutting Mowbrays Road whereas the land purchased by defendant No. 2 is touching back of land purchased by defendant No. 1. The dispute is in respect of the passage over which plaintiff claims an exclusive right of use in terms of the sale deed dated May 31, 1988 whereas defendant No. 2 claims access to land purchased by her on the strength of recitals in the sale deed in her favour and also the fact that she has been using such passage from the day of purchase.

6. Before we advert to the respective arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, some factual aspects in respect of the sale deed are in question. The copy of sale deed dated December 5, 1973 has been produced by Mr. Basant, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff. The said sale deed recites that piece of land described in the schedule attached with the sale deed and marked in the plan and all rights, title and interest in the said property together with all ways sewages rights easements advantages and all other appurtenances and privileges heretofore enjoyed by the vendor stands conveyed to the said defendant. The layout plan shows that the area of land is 3483.66 sq. feet that is 44 feet 3 inches x 44 feet. There is a long rectangular strip 12 feet wide in the layout plan adjoining to the said land conveyed.

7. The second sale deed dated April 1, 1976 (Exh. B3) is in respect of plot area 1062 sq. feet having similar recitals as in the sale deed (Exh.B1) whereas in the lay out plan in the schedule attached to the sale deed, the area marked red in the plan is the area conveyed to the defendant No. 2. It is admitted by the parties that the colour in the original site plan cannot be made out at this stage but from the document attached with the sale deed (Exh. B4), land measuring 44 feet 3 inches x 24 feet was conveyed to defendant No. 2 adjoining rectangular piece of land 12 feet wide. The plaintiff purchased land in the same block but on the rear side of the land sold to defendant No. 2 vide sale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 747

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAL. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.DR. S. KUMAR & ORS – AppellantsVersusS. RAMALINGAM – RespondentCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8628-8629 OF 2009Decided On : 16-07-2019

IMPORTANT POINTSRights of the parties are to be adjudicated on date of suit. Subsequent merger of title of two persons in one person by inheritance would be immaterial.Right to passage granted to vendee in sale deed is not easement of necessity.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
DR. S. KUMAR & ORS – Appellants
Versus
S. RAMALINGAM – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8628-8629 OF 2009
Decided On : 16-07-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Rights of the parties are to be adjudicated on date of suit. Subsequent merger of title of two persons in one person by inheritance would be immaterial.
Right to passage granted to vendee in sale deed is not easement of necessity.