The right to access and use a common passage between two properties (A & B) on Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, the plaintiff-respondents, represented by their heirs, sought a decree for a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants-appellants from obstructing the common passage. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff-respondents were required to leave a common passage for the defendants-appellants to access their property. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that only the passage marked X-Y (in front of portion A) is a common passage, rejecting the claim that the entire passage, including Y-Z and Z-Z1 in portion B, could be used by the plaintiff-respondents. The first appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court’s judgment was restored.

Main Facts:

1. Background:

   • Sh. Jaspal Singh initially owned 1398 square yards of land (8C/1, Rajpur Road). He divided it into two portions (A & B) of 699 square yards each, selling portion A to the plaintiff-respondents and portion B to the defendants-appellants in 1974.
   • Portion B was landlocked and had no access except through a 15-foot wide common passage that was to be left by the owner of portion A.

2. Plaintiff’s Allegation:

   • The plaintiff-respondents claimed that the common passage shown in the sale deed was for joint use by both properties and included portions of passage located in both A and B (X-Y, Y-Z, and Z-Z1). The defendants-appellants allegedly obstructed the use of this common passage.

3. Defendant’s Argument:

   • The defendants-appellants argued that the sale deed only required the plaintiffs to leave a common passage marked X-Y for their use, and there was no agreement or stipulation that the portion Y-Z and Z-Z1 in the defendant's property would be used by the plaintiffs.

4. Trial Court Decision (2002):

   • The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that only the X-Y portion of the common passage was for joint use by both parties. The Y-Z and Z-Z1 portions belonged exclusively to the defendants.

5. First Appellate Court Decision (2011):

   • The first appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the entire passage from X-Z1 was to be used by both parties.

6. Supreme Court Ruling (2024):

   • The Supreme Court overruled the appellate court, interpreting the sale deeds to conclude that only the X-Y portion was designated as a common passage. The rest of the passage (Y-Z and Z-Z1) belonged solely to the defendants-appellants, and the plaintiffs had no right to use it.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 55 (Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller)
• Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 38 (Permanent Injunction)
• Easementary Rights: Easementary rights regarding access to property, common use passages, and ownership.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court held that when interpreting the sale deeds, the language must be clear and unambiguous. The sale deed for portion A explicitly provided for a 15-foot common passage for the use of both parties, but only up to X-Y. The Court emphasized that no further passage (Y-Z or Z-Z1) was intended for common use, as the defendants-appellants had exclusive ownership of that portion. The trial court's literal interpretation of the sale deeds was upheld.

Subjects:

Property Law, Easementary Rights, Permanent Injunction, Common Passage, Easement, Property Dispute, Sale Deed Interpretation