The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of sale deeds to determine easement rights and obligations over a common passage.

1. This Second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2012 passed in A.S.No.145 of 2012 by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.6053 of 2009. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiff/Khaja Mohiddin filed the suit as against Govind Singh/the defendant seeking the following reliefs as per the amended plaint:

"(i) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their man, agents, representatives and whomsover claiming under his from putting up any kind of further construction including raising the pavement either permanent or temporary in nature in the common passage situated on the western side and southern side of the suit schedule property;

(ii) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their man, agents, representatives and whomsoever claiming under him from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession, enjoyment and free access of the common passage situated on the western side of the suit schedule property;

(iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their man, agents, representatives and whomsoever claiming under him from parking Motor Vehicle of any kind in the common passage situated on the western side of the suit schedule property or making any kind of obstruction to the plaintiff;

(iv) For a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove and demolish the sunshade construction which rests on the first floor in the southern side of suit schedule property of the plaintiff;

(v) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the raised ground level pavement in the common passage situated on the western side of the suit schedule property;

(vi) For a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the construction put up on the southern side of the suit Schedule property which prevents the plaintiff from maintaining the external walls of the suit schedule property; and

(vii) For a declaration that pathway situated on the western side of the suit schedule property morefully described in the 'B' Schedule is common for both the plaintiff and the defendant and a consequential relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant to remove the iron/grill gate fixed on 30.03.2011 at the entrance point of the 'B' schedule i.e., on the western side adjacent to the home of the plaintiff."

(extracted as such)

(b) The gist and kernel of the averments in the amended plaint would run thus:

The plaintiff purchased the 'A' scheduled property measuring an extent of 2319 sq.ft. vide the sale deed dated 21.05.1990, Ex.A1 and the vendors retained their remaining property on the southern side of the property sold to the plaintiff. On the western side of the suit scheduled property, there is a common passage which is meant for the use of the plaintiff as well as the vendors of the plaintiff. The clauses in Ex.A1 would contemplate that the said passage situated to the west of the property sold to the plaintiff, should be maintained as common passage and there should not be any obstruction at the instance of either the vendors or the plaintiff. Subsequently, the same vendors sold their said remaining property to the south of the property which was sold to the plaintiff vide Ex.B4, the sale deed dated 20.04.2006 and thereafter, the purchaser namely the defendant caused hindrance to the plaintiff for the use of the said common passage. Hence the suit.

(c) Per contra, the defendant filed the written statement and the additional written statement denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint.

The claim of the plaintiff that the passage is a common one