Where a sale deed confers undivided rights and common interests in land and amenities, neither party can claim exclusive right to restricted use of common passages at an interlocutory stage if such restriction obstructs the necessary access to the property.

ORAL JUDGMENT

MFA No.5552/2021 is preferred by the defendants in O.S. No.9311/2019 calling in question, the order dated 10.03.2020 passed on I.A. No.1 by the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-30) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from interfering with the enjoyment of passage, staircase and lift provided to schedule ‘B’ property came to be allowed.

2. MFA No.1197/2025 is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No.4865/2020, assailing the order dated 08.11.2024 passed on I.A. No.3/2024 on the file of the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-38) (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and Rule 2 CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants or anyone claiming through them from parking vehicles or using the schedule ‘A’ property for any purpose, pending disposal of the suit came to be rejected.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of the dispute between the same parties in respect of the common properties and reciprocal rights over the passage and parking area, though from different suits, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

4. The plaintiff in O.S. No.4865/2020 seeks to restrain the defendants from using the passage and parking area, whereas the defendants in O.S. No.9311/2019 have asserted their right of access and enjoyment of common areas, including the passage, staircase and lift, arising out of their purchase and undivided share.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No.4865/2020 and the defendant in O.S. No.9311/2019, contends that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.4865/2020, despite the clear obstruction allegedly caused by the defendants by parking vehicles in the schedule ‘A’ property and despite the plaintiff being in possession and entitled to regulate the use of passage. It is contended that the parking in the common passage amounts to interference with ingress and egress and that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the existence of a prima facie case and balance of convenience and the order granting injunction in O.S. No.9311/2019 in favour of the respondents virtually denies access to the ‘B’ schedule property. It is contended that the access through passage and common areas is incidental to ownership, and the injunction granted is excessive and unsustainable.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in O.S. No.4865/2020 submits that the respondents have an undivided share and a right to use the common areas, including passage and that the parking rights flow from the sale deed and nature of the property. No exclusive right is vested with the plaintiff to restrict the usage and it is contended that the appellant is interfering beyond the permissible use and the Trial Court has rightly protected the respondents’ possession and regulated access and the order is necessary to prevent misuse and obstruction and the application filed by the appellant in O.S. No.4865/2020 is rightly been rejected.

7. This Court has carefully considered the contentions and perused the material on record.

8. It is noticed that MFA No.1197/2025 arises out of O