Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from two sale deeds executed on 12.04.1974 by Sh. Jaspal Singh, who divided his plot of 1398 square yards into two equal halves: portion A (front) and portion B (back). Portion A was sold to the plaintiff-respondents (Murti Devi) and portion B to the defendants-appellants (Kamal Kishore Sehgal). The sale deed of portion A contained a recital that the purchaser would leave a 15 feet wide common passage for access to the back portion, with the right of use for both parties. The sale deed of portion B stated that the passage was left by the front owner for access. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in 1991, claiming that the entire common passage shown in green colour (including portions Y-Z and Z-Z1 on the defendants' land) was common and that the defendants could not obstruct its use. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that only the passage X-Y (left by the plaintiff) was common. The High Court reversed, holding the entire passage X-Z1 was common. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court's judgment. The court held that the language of the sale deeds was clear and unambiguous: only the plaintiff was required to leave a 15 feet wide passage (X-Y) for common use, and the defendants had no obligation to leave any passage on their portion B. The portions Y-Z and Z-Z1 were exclusive property of the defendants. The court applied the principle of literal construction, emphasizing that clear language must be given its ordinary meaning without resorting to surrounding circumstances. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Interpretation of Sale Deed - Common Passage - Clear and Unambiguous Language - The court interpreted the recitals of two sale deeds executed on the same day for adjacent plots. The front portion owner's deed stated she would leave a 15 feet wide common passage for access to the back portion, with right of use for both. The back portion owner's deed stated the passage was left by the front owner. There was no stipulation that the back owner would leave any passage. Held that the common passage refers only to the portion left by the front owner (X-Y), and the rest of the passage (Y-Z, Z-Z1) is exclusive property of the back owner. (Paras 13-17) B) Interpretation of Deeds - Literal Construction - Cardinal Principle - Where the language of an instrument is clear and unambiguous, the common literary meaning must be assigned, and surrounding circumstances should not be considered. The court applied this principle to hold that the trial court's interpretation was correct. (Para 18) C) Property Law - Easement - Right of Way - The front portion owner had the right to use the common passage left by her, but no right over the back portion owner's land. The back portion owner had no obligation to leave any passage for the front owner. (Paras 14-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the entire common passage shown in green colour in the map annexed to the sale deeds (X-Y, Y-Z, Z-Z1) is to be used by both parties or only the portion X-Y is the common passage.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of High Court set aside; suit dismissed.
Law Points
- Interpretation of deeds
- clear and unambiguous language
- literal construction
- common passage rights
- easementary rights
