19 September 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Property Law >> Personal Law  

In a recent ruling of Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr. Lrs. & Others v/s Murti Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs., the legal battle between regarding the use of a common passage in Delhi has taken a significant turn, reversing a prior decision made by the trial court. The plaintiffs, now represented by their heirs, initially sought a permanent injunction concerning a shared passage that had been central to the use of their property.

Background of the Case:

The dispute originated from a real estate transaction in 1972, when Sh. Jaspal Singh, along with his co-owners, purchased a plot of land measuring 3,116 square yards in Civil Lines, Delhi. Upon dividing the property, Jaspal Singh retained 1,398 square yards, which he subdivided into two equal portions—Portion A and Portion B—each measuring 699 square yards. Portion A was sold to the plaintiffs, while Portion B was sold to the defendants.

The sale deed for Portion A explicitly stated that the plaintiff would leave a 15-foot-wide common passage for the use of both parties, facilitating access to Portion B, which lacked direct access to the main road. Conversely, the defendants’ sale deed did not impose any obligation to maintain a similar passage.

Trial Court Proceedings:

The plaintiffs filed their suit in 1991, claiming a right to use the entire common passage marked in green on the attached maps of both sale deeds. They argued that the defendants could not obstruct their use of this passage. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were solely responsible for leaving the common passage for their benefit.

After reviewing the case, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, concluding that the sale deeds indicated only the area marked from X to Y as a common passage for both parties. The court found no provision requiring the defendants to maintain a common passage in their area.

High Court Appeal:

Dissatisfied with the trial court's ruling, the plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which found in their favor, declaring that the entire passage from X to Z1 was available for use by both parties. This judgment was based on an interpretation that emphasized the use of the term "common passage."

Supreme Court's Analysis:

Upon further appeal from the defendants, the Supreme Court carefully examined the sale deeds and the specific provisions contained therein. The Court emphasized that the language of the deeds was clear: the plaintiffs were to leave a common passage only from X to Y, while the defendants had no corresponding obligation to provide access through Portion B.

The Court concluded that the trial court had correctly interpreted the documents, asserting that the common passage designated as X to Y was intended solely for ingress and egress for the defendants to access their property. The areas marked Y to Z and Z to Z1 were determined to be exclusive to the defendants.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ultimately restored the trial court's decision, thereby disallowing the plaintiffs’ claim to access beyond the stipulated common passage. The ruling underscores the importance of precise language in property transactions and highlights the principle that agreements must be interpreted based on their explicit terms rather than inferred intentions. This case serves as a critical reminder for property owners to ensure clarity in legal documents to avoid disputes in the future.