WHERE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR & UNAMBIGOUS, DOCUMENT BE INTERPRETED LITERALLY: SUPREME COURT
Category: Corporate Laws
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The pleadings of the parties reveal that Sh. Jaspal Singh along with Smt. Raj Rani and Smt. Sudesh Rani jointly purchased a piece of land measuring 3116 square yards, more popularly/particularly described as plot no. 8C, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi vide sale deed dated 30.09.1972. Out of the aforesaid 3116 square yards of land, Sh. Jaspal Singh became the absolute owner in possession of 1398 square yards of land with all easementary rights and this area in his possession came to be marked as Municipal No. 8C/1, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The said plot of land faces the Battery Lane on the northern side and on one side of it is Tirath Ram Hospital and on the other two sides there are properties of two other private persons. It means that the said plot had no other access except through the Battery Lane.
9. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the court of first instance and finally the suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiff-respondents under their sale deed had to leave the common passage X to Y for ingress & egress of defendants-appellants as an access to their back portion B to be used jointly by both the parties. There was no stipulation that portion Y-Z is to be used by the plaintiff-respondents.
ISSUE OF THE CASE-
The said issue largely depends upon the interpretation of the recitals of the sale deeds and as to whether the ‘common passage’ in use by both the parties refer to the entire common passage from X-Y, Y-Z and Z-Z1 or only to X-Y?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT-
Sh. Jaspal Singh divided his plot of land measuring 1398 square yards in two equal halves of 699 square yards and marked them as A (front portion) and B (back portion). He sold both portions A and B each having an area of 699 square yards vide separate registered sale deeds dated 12.04.1974. Portion A was sold to plaintiff-respondents and portion B to the defendants-appellants. Since portion B was in the back and had no access to the Battery Lane, the sale deed of the plaintiff-respondents, categorically provided that she would leave a 15 feet wide common passage on side of portion A for the common use of the owners of portions A & B both. However, in the sale deed of the defendants-appellants, there was no similar stipulation that they would also have to leave any such passage, much less to be used by the owners of portion A.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT-
There is no recital in the said sale deed that the defendants-appellants also have to leave a 15 feet wide passage in their portion B for use as a common passage by the plaintiff-respondents, the owner of portion A.
COURT DECISION/ ANALYSIS OF LAW/ CONCLUSION-
The sale deeds for plot A and plot B were executed on the same day and for the same sale consideration, with both portions being of equal size and value. Despite the deeds referring to a 15 feet wide common passage, the actual passage is only 10-11 feet wide. The court ruled that only the owner of the front portion A was responsible for the 15 feet wide passage, not the owner of the back portion B. The clauses in the sale deeds of both the plaintiff and the defendants indicate that the plaintiff was required to leave a 15-foot-wide common passage for access to the back portion, but there was no clause granting her access to the passage in front of the defendants' portion. On the other hand, the defendants were granted access to the back portion from the front portion without a similar requirement to leave a common passage for joint use. The attorney of the plaintiff admitted that he drafted the sale deeds and that no agreement was made regarding the passage and its use. The site plans attached to the sale deeds did not accurately reflect the true intention of the parties. The sale deed lacks ambiguity, and the plaintiff's attorney, a senior advocate, carefully drafted it. The plaintiff received the front portion of the land, while the defendant received the rear portion for the same consideration. The plaintiff had to sacrifice a 15-foot passage since the front portion holds more market value. Both parties made different constructions, indicating their understanding that the portions are occupied by different persons. The defendants' portion is from point Y to Z, and the plaintiff has nothing to do with that portion.
Accordingly, in our opinion the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court dated 01.11.2011 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside and that of the court of first instance dated 22.02.2002 is restored. The appeal is allowed with no order as to cost.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: ALOK CHHAPARWAL
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
