Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Murti Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.9482 Of 2013
Decided On : 19-09-2024
(A) Injunction – Suit seeking decree of permanent injunction in respect of common passage – Suit decreed in favour of respondents by First Appellate Court – Common passage referred to in sale deeds is only in context with common passage which was supposed to be left by purchasers/owners of portion (Plaintiff-respondents) for ingress and egress of owners of another portion as they have no other alternative way of access to any other road or lane – Simply for reason that said passage is in alignment with common passage, plaintiff-respondents cannot claim any right over it – Since defendants-appellants under sale deed were not supposed to leave any such passage in portion purchased or owned by them, plaintiff-respondents have no right to use any part of that portion which exclusively belongs to defendants-appellants – Judgment and order of First Appellate Court set aside and that of Court of first instance restored. (Paras 22, 23 and 24)
(B) Interpretation of Documents – Literal Construction – Where language employed in instrument is clear and unambiguous, common literary meaning ought to be assigned in interpreting the same and one should not fall back on any other inference – Only expression in clear words contained in instrument/document must be considered and not surrounding circumstances – Literal construction must be considered first, rather than going into intention behind what is said in instrument/document if language of instrument is clear and unambiguous. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Suit of plaintiff now represented by her heirs and legal representatives (respondents herein) for decree of permanent injunction in respect of use of passage, more commonly described as ‘common passage’, was dismissed by court of first instance, but in appeal the judgment and order of Trial Court has been reversed and the suit stands decreed.
Findings of Court:
There is otherwise no justification for allowing plaintiff-respondents to have access or use of passage Y-Z or ZZ1 comprised in portion B as there is no access to their portion from said passage.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Mithal, J.) :
1. The suit of the plaintiff now represented by her heirs and legal representatives (respondents herein) for the decree of permanent injunction in respect of the use of passage, more commonly described as ‘common passage’, was dismissed by the court of first instance, but in appeal the judgment and order of the Trial Court has been reversed and the suit stands decreed.
2. In the above circumstances, the defendants and their legal representatives (appellants herein) have preferred this appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. S. K. Sharma, advocate for the appellants and Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Advocate for the respondents.
4. The pleadings of the parties reveal that Sh. Jaspal Singh along with Smt. Raj Rani and Smt. Sudesh Rani jointly purchased a piece of land measuring 3116 square yards, more popularly/particularly described as plot no. 8C, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi vide sale deed dated 30.09.1972. Out of the aforesaid 3116 square yards of land, Sh. Jaspal Singh became the absolute owner in possession of 1398 square yards of land with all easementary rights and this area in his possession came to be marked as Municipal No. 8C/1, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The said plot of land faces the Battery Lane on the northern side and on one side of it is Tirath Ram Hospital and on the other two sides there are properties of two other private persons. It means that the said plot had no other access except through the Battery Lane.
5. Sh. Jaspal Singh divided his plot of land measuring 1398 square yards in two equal halves of 699 square yards and marked them as A (front portion) and B (back portion). He sold both portions A and B each having an area of 699 square yards vide separate registered sale deeds dated 12.04.1974. Portion A was sold to plaintiff-respondents and portion B to the defendants-appellants. Since portion B was in the back and had no access to the Battery Lane, the sale deed of the plaintiff-respondents, categorically provided that she would leave a 15 feet wide common passage on side of portion A for the common use of the owners of portions A & B both. However, in the sale deed of the defendants-appellants, there was no similar stipulation that they would also have to leave any such passage, much less to be used by the owners of portion A.
6. It is worth noting that the size of both the portions A & B transferred by Sh. Jaspal Singh were exactly the same. The sale deeds were executed on the same day and on the same sale consideration. In other words, plot A, which was in the front and plot B, which was on the back side were valued at the same rate. It may be relevant to note that since the portions which were sold, were little elevated vis a vis the Battery Lane, a ramp was constructed at the entry point of the passage. It is also important to note that though the respective sale deeds refer to a 15 feet wide common passage, but in reality, the said passage is only 10-11 feet wide to which no one has objected as of date.
7. The plaintiff-respondents sometime in the year 1991, brought about the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction inter-alia alleging that the 15 feet wide common passage shown in green colour is not the passage adjoining only portion A of the plaintiff-respondents, but it also includes the passage which runs across the portion B of the defendants-appellants as well. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondents have a right to use the said entire common passage shown in green colour in the map attached to the sale deeds. The defendants-appellants cannot obstruct the use of the said common passage by the plaintiff-respondents. As such, they may be, apart from other things, restrained from causing any obstruction in the use of the said entire common passage by the plaintiff-respondents.
8. The suit was contested by the defendants-appellants by filing written statement contending that according to the sale deed of the plaintiff-respondents, they alone were required to leave a common
(1) Decree of permanent injunction cannot be granted by going against stipulations in agreement to sell.(2) Interpretation of Documents – Where language employed in instrument is clear and unambiguou....
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title and right to the property, which was affirmed by the court based on evidence of joint usage.
Consistent recitals in prior sale deeds establish common pathway rights, prevailing over later exclusive claims absent explanation.
The judgment establishes that a disputed passage is deemed a common passage, rejecting claims of exclusive ownership when the claimant fails to provide adequate evidence of possession.
Court clarified that claims for easementary rights require explicit pleadings and declarations, ruling on injunction based on possession without such declarations is unsustainable.
Where Easement Act inapplicable, easement rights governed by justice, equity, good conscience; right by gift deed extinguished by changed circumstances providing independent access and causing servie....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
