1. The plaintiff has claimed title over one plot No.3 under the registered Deed of Conveyance dated 18th December, 1969 where the plaintiff's building has been constructed. The plaintiff has claimed to trace its title under the conveyance by one Habib Mohammed Hashambhoy (Habib)which was granted to one Tulsidas Chatrabhuj Gandhi and Madhukanta Gandhi (Gandhi). Under the said conveyance Habib covenanted that the road on plot No.7B (which is adjacent to plaintiffs plot No.3) and is a private road and shall be kept open for the purpose of access interalia to plot No. 3. On 16th August, 1960 a conveyance was executed by Gandhi in favour of one L K Marketing Investment Company (L K Market) from whom the plaintiff purchased plot No.3. The plaintiff accordingly claims access to its plot from plot No.7B. The conveyance is also stated to have been executed by Habib in favour of one Ms. Ratan Mathurdas Merchant (Ratan) in respect of plot No.7B on 9th September, 1974. Defendant No.4 claims to be the brother and the sole heir of Ratan. Defendant No.1 claims to have purchased plot No.7B under two conveyances dated 18th and 19th December, 1997 from defendant No.4.

2. Hence whereas the plaintiff claims right under the covenant under the conveyances of its predecessorsintitle to have access from plot 7B to plot No.3, and the defendants claim title to plot No.7B. The plaintiff has challenged the conveyances in favour of the defendants by way of an amendment to the plaint which has been earlier allowed.

3. The plaintiff has further sought a declaration that the private road under the plot No.7B which is the approach road to its properties belongs to the plaintiff and one other society and that defendant No.1 is not entitled to enter upon or remain thereon or to park his cars or vehicles on plot No.7B which is the approach road to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff has accordingly claimed declaration of ownership on the said plot.

4. A conveyance by and between the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and defendant No.1 is claimed to have been executed in respect of plot No.6A which is also an adjoining plot. The plaintiff has sought declaration that the plot No.6A which is the approach road to its property is common passage road and none of the defendants has any right, title or interest therein. The plaintiff has sought declaration that the conveyance in respect of the said plot dated 23th October, 1997 is illegal and sham.

5. The plaintiff's ownership right in respect of plot No.3 is not disputed. The plaintiff's claim that plot No.7B belongs to plaintiff is disputed. The plaintiff's right of access to plot No.6A is also disputed.

6. The above documents of title would be required to be seen in this suit to adjudge the plaintiff's rights to plot No.7B.

7. Upon such a case plaintiff has sought to amend the plaint under the above Chamber Summons. Under the amendment by which paragraph 19A and prayer (C4) are sought to be added in the plaint, the plaintiff seeks to aver that in the alternative to the plaintiff's case that plot No.7B belongs to the plaintiff, the plaintiff enjoys his easementary rights of parking on plot No.6A & 7B. The plaintiff has sought to aver that right from the conveyance dated 21st October, 1959 an express grant of right of access there-under carried with it the implied right to park on plot No.6A and 7B for fully enjoying plot No.3. The plaintiff claims that the easement of parking is part of and ancillary to the right of access and has been continuously exercised by the plaintiff since 1969 which is the date of the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff by L K Market. The plaintiff claims a vested right to park its cars on plot No.6A & 7B. The plaintiff seeks to aver that that right is not inconsistent with the claim of ownership of defendant No.1 and that the right to park on the servient land is necessary to make a grant of vehicular access effectual. Hence the plaintiff would contend that if plot No.7B is held not to bel