Analysis Of Common Passage Dispute And Interpretation Of Sale Deeds

CASE TITLE:

KAMAL KISHORE SEHGAL THR. LRS. & ORS V. MURTI DEVI THR. LSR.

DATE OF ORDER:

19 SEPTEMBER 2024

BENCH: 

J.PANKAJ MITHAL AND J. R. MAHADEVAN

PARTIES-

APPELLANT:  KAMAL KISHORE SEHGAL THR. LRS. & ORS
RESPONDENT: MURTI DEVI THR. LSR.

SUBJECT

The case revolves around a property dispute between Kamal Kishore Sehgal and Murti Devi regarding the use of a common passage in a plot of land on Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The primary issue was whether the entire passage, including sections within both parties' properties, should be shared, or if only a specific portion (X-Y) was designated as a common passage. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellants, limiting the common passage to X-Y and confirming the appellants' exclusive rights over the remaining sections.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

1. Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 92: Written contract terms cannot be contradicted by external evidence if the terms are clear.
2. Indian Easements Act, 1882 – Section 13: Establishes the right of way or easement over another's land, relevant for determining passage rights.
3. Literal Interpretation: Contracts must be interpreted based on clear, explicit terms without relying on external factors.

AN OVERVIEW

1. Jaspal Singh, along with two others, jointly purchased a piece of land measuring 3116 square yards on Rajpur Road Civil Lines, Delhi.  Further, Jaspal Singh had become the absolute owner of 1398 square yards.
2. Jaspal Singh divided his 1398 square yards into two portions i.e. A and B of 699 square yards each. He sold portion A i.e. the front plot to the plaintiff, Murti Devi and second portion Bto defendants, Kamal Kishore Sehgal. Portion B had no direct access to the road except through Portion A.
3. Further, the sale deed for Portion A stipulated a 15 foot wide common passage for use by both parties, granting access to Portion B. However, the sale deed for Portion B did not require the owners of Portion B to leave any additional passage for use by Portion A.
4. Further, Murti Devi filed a suit claiming the right to use the entire passage (X-Y, Y-Z and Z-Z1) for both portions A and B. The defendants contested, arguing that the common passage only extended from X to Y and not beyond.
5. Furthermore, the Trial Court ruled that the common passage referred only to the X-Y section, supporting the defendants’ position that the plaintiff did not have the right to use the passage beyond this point.
   6. Further, the High court overturned the ruling of the Trial Court and declared the entire passage as common passage. Furthermore, the case was put forth before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Is the common passage limited to X-Y or does it include Y-Z and Z-Z1?
2. What do the sale deeds specify about the common passage use?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT

1. The appellants argued that according to the sale deed of the plaintiff-respondents (Murti Devi), only a 15-foot-wide passage marked as X-Y was meant to be left for common use by both parties. They contended that this passage was specifically for the ingress and egress of the owners of the rear portion (B), which had no other access.
2. The appellants maintained that the open space marked as Y-Z or Z-Z1 in portion B was not intended to be a common passage. They argued that this space was part of their exclusive property, not a continuation of the common passage, and was never meant for use by the owners of portion A.
3. They highlighted that the sale deed of the respondents explicitly required them to leave a common passage in their portion (A) for the benefit of the appellants, but no such stipulation was imposed on the appellants to leave a common passage in portion B for the respondents.
4. The appellants argued that the High Court erroneously expanded the scope of the common passage by including Y-Z and Z-Z1, which were part of their exclusive property, into the definition of the common passage.
5. The appellants supported the trial court’s interpretation that the common passage was limited to X-Y and should be used by both parties, while the passage Y-Z and Z-Z1 remained under the exclusive control of the appellants.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

1. The respondents argued that the entire passage, including the portions marked X-Y, Y-Z, and Z-Z1, was meant to be a common passage for the use of both the owners of portion A (front) and portion B (back). They claimed the entire passage was described as common in the sale deeds and should be shared.
2. The respondents contended that the sale deed did not restrict their right to use the portion of the passage that lay in the appellants' plot (B). They maintained that the common passage was indicated in the sale deed to serve both plots, and its designation as a "common passage" applied to the entire length, not just the portion X-Y.
3. Since the passage was essential for ingress and egress to both plots, the respondents argued that the use of the passage, even beyond X-Y, was necessary for their full enjoyment of the property and should be considered a shared right.
4. The respondents referred to the map annexed to the sale deeds, which they claimed showed the entire passage (X-Y-Z-Z1) as a continuous path meant for joint use by both parties. They argued that the alignment of the passage implied its common nature throughout.
5. The respondents supported the High Court’s ruling, which interpreted the term "common passage" to extend across the entire length from X-Y to Z-Z1, allowing both parties the right to use the full passage without obstruction by the appellants.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

1. The court examined the language of both sale deeds (portion A for the respondents and portion B for the appellants). It noted that the sale deed for portion A explicitly required the respondents to leave a 15-foot-wide common passage (marked X-Y) for access to the back portion (B). However, there was no corresponding stipulation in the appellants' sale deed (portion B) to leave any additional passage for the respondents.
2. The court emphasized that the sale deed for portion A only referred to a common passage for access to the back portion, which clearly indicated the X-Y segment. There was no mention of any right for the respondents to use the Y-Z or Z-Z1 portion, which lay within the appellants' property (portion B).
3. Applying the principle of literal interpretation, the court determined that the language of the sale deeds was clear and unambiguous. The common passage referred to in the documents was limited to X-Y. The court emphasized that if the respondents had any rights to use the Y-Z or Z-Z1 portion, it would have been explicitly mentioned in the sale deed, but no such provision existed.
4. The court affirmed the reasoning of the trial court, which concluded that the common passage was restricted to X-Y, and that the appellants were not obligated to provide any additional passage in their plot B for the respondents' use.
5. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had incorrectly interpreted the sale deeds by unnecessarily expanding the definition of the common passage to include Y-Z and Z-Z1. The High Court's ruling conflicted with the clear language of the sale deeds, which only granted the right to use the passage X-Y as common.
6. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, restoring the trial court's decision. The court ruled that the common passage was limited to X-Y and that the respondents (owners of portion A) had no right to use the Y-Z or Z-Z1 portions within the appellants' (owners of portion B) property. The court held that the respondents could only use the common passage X-Y for access to their plot, and the appellants had exclusive ownership of portion B, including Y-Z and Z-Z1. The appeal by Kamal Kishore Sehgal (appellants) was allowed, and the respondents were denied access to the passage beyond X-Y. No costs were imposed.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the common passage referred to in the sale deeds between Kamal Kishore Sehgal and Murti Devi was limited to the portion marked X-Y. The court clarified that the respondents (owners of portion A) had no right to use the portions marked Y-Z and Z-Z1, which were part of the appellants' property (portion B). The court restored the trial court's decision, rejecting the High Court's broader interpretation of the common passage, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants without any costs.