Supreme Court Clarifies Common Passage Rights in Property Dispute: Kamal Kishore Sehgal vs. Murti Devi (2024)

Date of the Judgment: September 19, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 707
Judges: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
Can a property owner claim a right to use a passage on a neighboring property simply because it aligns with their own common passage? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute concerning the use of a common passage. The core issue revolved around interpreting sale deeds to determine the extent of common passage rights between two adjacent properties. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan.

Case Background

In 1972, Sh. Jaspal Singh, along with Smt. Raj Rani and Smt. Sudesh Rani, jointly purchased a plot of land measuring 3116 square yards, identified as plot no. 8C, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Subsequently, Sh. Jaspal Singh became the owner of 1398 square yards of this land, which was designated as Municipal No. 8C/1. This plot faced Battery Lane on the north, with Tirath Ram Hospital on one side and private properties on the other two sides, making Battery Lane the only access point.

In 1974, Sh. Jaspal Singh divided his 1398 square yard plot into two equal halves of 699 square yards each, labeling them as A (front portion) and B (back portion). He sold both portions on April 12, 1974, through separate registered sale deeds. Portion A was sold to the plaintiff, Murti Devi (now represented by her legal representatives), and portion B was sold to the defendants, Kamal Kishore Sehgal (now represented by his legal representatives). The sale deed for portion A included a provision for a 15-foot-wide common passage on the side of portion A for the use of both owners of portions A and B. However, the sale deed for portion B did not include a similar stipulation requiring them to leave any passage.

The plaintiff, Murti Devi, filed a suit in 1991, asserting that the 15-foot-wide common passage extended beyond portion A and included a passage running across portion B. She claimed the right to use the entire common passage and sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from obstructing her use of it.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, holding that the sale deed required the plaintiff to leave a common passage for the defendants’ access to their back portion. The court found no stipulation that the portion Y-Z was to be used by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court.

The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, ruling that the entire common passage X-Z1 was a common passage usable by both parties. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the sale deeds executed on April 12, 1974. The Supreme Court focused on the specific language used in these documents to determine the extent of the common passage rights. The sale deed of portion A, in favor of the plaintiff, stated that the seller was transferring the land “together with right of use of 15 feet wide common passage which has been left for access to the back portion as shown in green colour in the plan annexed unto the purchaser“.

The sale deed of portion B, in favor of the defendants, mentioned the transfer of the land “with right of use of 15 feet wide common passage for access thereto as left by Smt. Murti Devi for that purpose“. The court emphasized that the sale deed for the defendants did not contain any provision that they also had to leave a passage for the plaintiff’s use.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• The plaintiff contended that the 15-foot-wide common passage, shown in green color in the map attached to the sale deeds, included not only the passage adjoining portion A but also the passage running across portion B.
• The plaintiff argued that the entire common passage, marked X to Z1, should be accessible to both the owners of portions A and B.
• The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from obstructing their use of the entire common passage.

Defendants’ Arguments:

• The defendants argued that the sale deed of the plaintiff required them to leave a 15-foot-wide common passage (marked X to Y) for the defendants’ access to portion B.
• They contended that the open space left by them in portion B (marked Y-Z or Z-Z1) was never intended to be a common passage but was an exclusive part of their property.
• The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s sale deed only granted them the right to use the passage left by the plaintiff, not any passage on the defendants’ property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the entire common passage, shown in green color in the map annexed to the sale deeds (marked X to Y, Y to Z, and Z to Z1), is to be used by both the plaintiff and the defendants, or whether only the portion of the passage marked X to Y is to be used as a common passage, with the passage marked Y to Z and Z to Z1 being the exclusive property of the defendants.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the principle of literal interpretation of the sale deeds. The court emphasized that when the language of a document is clear and unambiguous, the common literary meaning should be assigned, and one should not look for any other inference or intention behind the words.

The Court referred to the recitals of both the sale deeds and the agreement to sell dated 11.06.1973. The Court noted that the sale deed of the plaintiff stated that she was to leave a 15 feet wide common passage for the defendant’s access and that the sale deed of the defendant stated that they were to have the right to use the passage left by the plaintiff. There was no stipulation in the defendant’s sale deed that they also had to leave a passage for the plaintiff’s use.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of literal interpretation of the sale deeds. The Court emphasized that the language of the documents was clear and unambiguous, and therefore, the common literary meaning should be assigned. The Court also noted that the sale deed of the plaintiff specifically mentioned that they were to leave a 15-foot-wide passage, while the sale deed of the defendants did not impose any such obligation on them.

Logical Reasoning

The court reasoned that the sale deed of the plaintiff clearly stated that they were to leave a 15-foot-wide common passage for the access of the back portion. The court also noted that the sale deed of the defendants did not contain any stipulation that they also had to leave a passage for the plaintiff. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of the sale deeds.

The Supreme Court stated: “It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that where the language employed in the instrument is clear and unambiguous, the common literary meaning ought to be assigned in interpreting the same and one should not fall back on any other inference.”

The court further added, “Only the expression in clear words contained in the instrument/document must be considered and not the surrounding circumstances. In short, literal construction must be considered first, rather than going into the intention behind what is said in the instrument/document if the language of the instrument is clear and unambiguous.”

The court concluded, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, on the simple reading of the contents of the two sale deeds, we are of the opinion that the common passage referred to in those sale deeds and the map thereto is only in context with the common passage X-Y.”

Key Takeaways

• Literal Interpretation: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of literal interpretation of legal documents, especially sale deeds.
• Specific Language: The specific language used in the sale deeds is crucial in determining the rights of the parties.
• No Implied Rights: The court clarified that there are no implied rights to use a passage on a neighboring property simply because it aligns with one’s own common passage.
• Clarity in Documents: This judgment highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous language in legal documents to avoid future disputes.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court dated 01.11.2011 and restored the judgment of the Trial Court dated 22.02.2002. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the interpretation of sale deeds must be based on the literal meaning of the words used, and no implied rights can be assumed. This judgment reinforces the principle that when the language of a legal document is clear and unambiguous, the courts should not look for any other inference or intention behind the words. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment reinforces the principle of literal interpretation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kamal Kishore Sehgal vs. Murti Devi clarifies that common passage rights are limited to the specific areas explicitly mentioned in the sale deeds. The court emphasized the importance of literal interpretation of legal documents and held that the plaintiff did not have the right to use the passage on the defendant’s property. This ruling underscores the need for clear and unambiguous language in legal documents to avoid future disputes.

Category

Parent Category: Property Law
Child Categories:

• Sale Deed Interpretation
• Common Passage Rights
• Literal Interpretation
• Property Disputes

Parent Category: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Child Category: Interpretation of Deeds, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

FAQ

Q: What is a common passage in property law?
A: A common passage is a shared area, often a pathway or driveway, that provides access to multiple properties. The rights to use a common passage are usually defined in the property’s sale deed or other legal documents.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about common passage rights in this case?
A: The Supreme Court ruled that common passage rights are limited to the specific areas explicitly mentioned in the sale deeds. If a sale deed only grants the right to use a passage left by another party, it does not imply a right to use any other passage on the neighboring property.

Q: What does “literal interpretation” mean in the context of legal documents?
A: Literal interpretation means that the words in a legal document are given their plain, ordinary meaning. Courts should not try to interpret the intention behind the words if the language is clear and unambiguous.

Q: How does this judgment impact property owners?
A: This judgment emphasizes the importance of clear and specific language in sale deeds and other legal documents. Property owners should ensure that their rights and obligations regarding common passages are clearly defined in their documents to avoid future disputes.

Q: What should I do if I have a dispute about a common passage?
A: If you have a dispute about a common passage, you should first review your sale deed and any other relevant legal documents. If the issue cannot be resolved, you may need to seek legal advice from a qualified attorney.