The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the defendant's long-standing user rights over the garden, influencing the limitation of the plaintiff's access to the property.

1. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property being bungalow Sangeeta of Plot No.1, Guzder Scheme, C S No.584, Santacruz South Avenue Road, Santracruz (W), Mumbai 400 054. The plaintiff claims ownership rights under a registered conveyance deed dated 14th December, 2012. The plot of land conveyed to the plaintiff consists of a bungalow, a garage and an open space bounded by the compound wall. The compound wall has two gates called main and alternate gates; one on the east side and the other on the south side.

2. The defendant is a tenant in respect of the ground floor flat in the said bungalow. She claims her entrance from the alternate gate on the south side of the suit property. Adjoining to her flat is a garden.

3. The defendant claims that she has been in use of the garden since last 50 years that she was a tenant in her flat. The defendant has produced water bills of the municipality showing the water connection not only in her flat, but also in the garden. One bill is for water connection No. HW-F-6470000. The other bill is for water connection No.HW-F-6440007. The plaintiff has also produced the two bills bearing the same numbers as the bills of the defendant. The oldest of the plaintiff's bills are dated 30th June, 1983. The plaintiff has produced the latest bills of 2014 in respect of the same water connection number. The bills are in the name of original owner, C/o. the father of the defendant.

4. Consequently the defendant has shown her user and maintenance of the suit garden adjoining her flat as also her flat.

5. The plaintiff is entitled to the ownership rights subject to the right of tenancy of the defendant in respect of the flat and the right of user and maintenance of the defendant for a period of at least of last 30 years in respect of the garden adjoining to her flat to the east side of the suit property.

6. The plaintiff claims access to the suit property. The plaintiff would have access from both the gates to the suit property. That access would be to the entire suit property aside from the flat and the garden described above. The plaintiff would have right of access around the suit property from one gate to the other within the compound wall. The plaintiff would be entitled to a right of access to the first and second floor as also terrace of the suit property.

7. The plaintiff claims access into the garden of which the user is claimed by the defendant pursuant to its ownership rights. That access cannot be granted to the plaintiff in view of the long standing user of the defendant in the garden shown by the defendant prima facie by the aforesaid water connection bills issued in the name of the owner C/o. the defendant's father. That access cannot be granted to the plaintiff in view of the defendant's case with regard to the garden as aforesaid.

8. The plaintiff has relied upon an interview of the defendant in the Times of India in which the defendant is claimed to have stated that she had not stopped the earlier owner from using the garden as alleged by that owner. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that that it is an admission of the defendant with regard to the user by the previous owner and consequently her non user. A reading of the interview of the defendant does not shown her statement constituting such an admission. In fact the statement is a pointer to the fact that the garden was otherwise used by the defendant but she would have permitted the earlier owner to use it by the words “she has never stopped” the earlier owner from using it.

9. The plaintiff's suit is for an injunction against the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's ingress and egress, defacing the plaintiff's name board, trespassing on the open space in the suit plot of land, interfering with the right of the security guards and interfering with the plaintiff's development of the suit property. The plaintiff's Notice of Motion is for identical reliefs.

10. Ad interim order 4th March, 2013 has required the pl