The appellate court reaffirmed that existing rights to a common passage must be proven independently by plaintiffs, and sale deeds transferring rights to common property are void if the seller lacks ownership.

2. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by defendants/appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the II District Judge, District - Dewas in RCA No.23/2020 dated 01/05/2023, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff /respondent No.1 was allowed and judgment and decree passed by the IV Civil Judge Class-I, in RCS No. 15-A/2016 dated

18.05.2020 has been set-aside.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellants with regard to the six feet common passage of the house No.95 (New No.105) situated at Jayprakash Marg, Pitha Road, Dewas. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that multiple individuals acquired different portions of the| property by various registered sale deeds dating from 1986 onward. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI respondents (plaintiffs) claimed that the passage, referenced in several sale deeds is a “common passage” intended for use by all co-owners and occupants. They alleged that the “appellants (Defendants No.l and No.2) have recently obstructed passage-erected an iron shutter, locked the entry, constructed walls and a water tank and thereby denying access to other co-owners and stakeholders. It was further pleaded that complaints to Municipal authorities failed and thus the respondents were constrained to file a civil suit in bearing RCS No. 15-A/2016 seeking a declaration of joint rights over the passage and a permanent injunction for removal of these obstructions and by amendment a declaration that the sale deed dated 25.04.2017 purporting to transfer passage rights is void.

4. The appellants before the trial Court denied all allegations, asserting that the supposed common passage is Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI in fact a private route serving only their portion of the property, duly mentioned in their sale deed and they were in use since 2007. They contended that the respondents‟ map is self-made and unsanctioned, that the “common passage” reference in older sale deeds lacks legal effect, and that no official authority ever recognized or approved the passage as a joint facility. The appellants further submitted that for more than 20 years respondents have had alternate access from Mohandas Mandir, he constructed walls, and never objected until commercial value -increased. They argued that the suit suffered from fatal defects. It was barred by limitation (as the cause of action alleged was vague and historic, not recent), improper payment and valuation of Court fees for cancellation relief, non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of supporting evidence or affidavits from most Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI plaintiffs, and absence of official or sanctioned maps or documents substantiating the claim.

5. The trial court after examining evidence and pleadings dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiffs failed to produce credible evidence establishing the disputed passage as a common facility. Secondly the sketch/map relied upon was unapproved, un-official and inadmissible, thirdly affidavits from key plaintiffs were missing, and the suit was both time-barred and deficient in Court fee payment. The trial Court framed the following substantial questions of law :-

"a) Whether the disputed portion is a common passage jointly owned and used by all parties ?

b) Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are co-

owners of the passage?

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI c) Whether the defendants unlawfully constructed upon and obstructed the passage ?

d) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of declaration, injunction and res