JUDGMENT:- This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment of the Ist Additional Civil Judge Bulandshahr. The appellant brought a suit in the court of Munsif Bulandshahr for demolition of certain constructions raised by respondents l and 2 in a strip of land in front of their house. The admitted facts of the case are that Vidya Ram in respondent No. 4 was the original owner of a plot of land shown by letters A-B-C-D in the plaint map situated in Dadri town. He divided his plot into five portions, and sold one plot to respondent No. 1, two portions were sold to the plaintiff-appellant and the forth portion was sold to respondent No. 3, while the last portion was retained by respondent No. 4 for himself. To the north of these portions, a strip of land 10 feet in width was provided for the benefit of all the purchasers and according to the plaint case, it was agreed upon that no constructions would be made on this strip of land by any purchaser. Respondents 1 and 2 made certain constructions on the said strip of land including a latrine. The plaintiff, therefore, sued for demolition of these constructions. The suit was contested by respondents 1 and 2 on various grounds. The main ground with which I am concerned in the present appeal is that the contract for leaving the strip of land unbuilt was arrived at between each purchaser on one side and the original owner on the other side and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to sue. The other pleas raised by the respondents were that the suit was barred by estoppel and acquiescence, and that the respondents had not committed any breach of the contract by making the constructions. Both the courts below have held that although respondents 1 and 2 had made constructions in contravention of the terms of the sale deed, yet the plaintiff had no cause of action and had no right to bring a suit. The other pleas raised by respondents 1 and 2 were, however, repelled. In view of the above mentioned findings, both the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and hence this appeal.

2. As already noted above, the only point which is involved in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has any right of suit in these circumstances. For the purposes of this appeal, it may be taken to be admitted that the disputed constructions have been made by respondents 1 and 2 in contravention of the condition mentioned in the sale deed. It does not appear to be disputed that when defendant No. 4 sold the various portions to different purchasers, it was expressly mentioned in the various sale deeds that the purchasers would not make any constructions on the open strip of land, which was to the north of these portions. Defendants 1 and 2 alone were given a right to make certain constructions towards the extreme end of this strip in the eastern portion. However it is admitted that defendants 1 and 2 have constructed a latrine and this is against the condition mentioned in the sale deed. The relevant question which arises for consideration is whether in these circumstances the plaintiff had got any right of suit or not.

3. Ordinarily speaking, if a property is absolutely transferred to another person, the transferor cannot impose any condition which might be inconsistent with the absolute right which has been created in favour of the transferee. This principle is embodied in the first part of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on the second part of this Section which runs as follows:-

"Where any such direction has been made in respect of one piece of immovable property for the purpose of securing the beneficial enjoyment of another piece of such property, nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any right which the transferor may have to enforce such direction or any remedy which he might have in respect of a breach thereof."

This part of section 11, therefore, provides for an exception to the general rule, namely, that it i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document