This Supreme Court judgment provides a clear interpretation of easement rights related to a common passage. The Court emphasizes the importance of interpreting sale deeds according to their plain language and rules that the absence of a specific obligation in a sale deed does not create an easement right for the other party.

This case involves a dispute over easement rights related to a common passage between two adjacent properties. The Supreme Court of India examined the interpretation of sale deeds to determine the extent of easement rights for the respective property owners.

Case Background:
Sh. Jaspal Singh originally owned a plot of land that he divided into two equal portions, designated as A (front) and B (back). Portion A was sold to Murti Devi (respondent), and portion B to Kamal Kishore Sehgal & Ors. (appellants). Since portion B was landlocked without direct access to the main road (Battery Lane), Murti Devi, as per her sale deed, had to leave a 15-feet wide passage on her portion for the common use of both property owners. However, the sale deed of Kamal Kishore Sehgal & Ors. did not contain a similar stipulation.

The dispute arose over the extent of the "common passage." Murti Devi claimed that the entire passage running across both properties, marked as X-Y, Y-Z, and Z-Z1, constituted the common passage for the use of both parties. Kamal Kishore Sehgal & Ors. argued that only the portion of the passage on Murti Devi's property (X-Y) was intended for common use, and the remaining passage on their property (Y-Z and Z-Z1) belonged exclusively to them.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of Kamal Kishore Sehgal & Ors., determining that only the passage marked X-Y was the common passage, as Murti Devi was the only one obligated to leave a passage. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, concluding that the entire passage from X-Z1 was a common passage for the use of both parties.

The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the sale deeds based on their clear and unambiguous language. The sale deed of Murti Devi explicitly stated her obligation to leave a 15-feet wide passage for access to the back portion, indicating that this passage (X-Y) was intended for common use. The sale deed of Kamal Kishore Sehgal & Ors. did not contain any stipulation requiring them to leave a passage on their portion for Murti Devi's use. And the Court found no ambiguity in the sale deeds regarding the easement rights related to the passage.
The Apex Court noted that where the language of a deed is unambiguous, it should be interpreted in favor of the grantee (in this case, Kamal Kishore Sehgal & Ors. regarding the portion of the passage on their property). Based on these observations, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Trial Court's decision. The Court held that only the passage marked X-Y on Murti Devi's property constituted the "common passage," and Kamal Kishore Sehgal & Ors. had exclusive rights over the remaining portion of the passage (Y-Z and Z-Z1) on their property.

Coram: Justice PANKAJ MITHAL and Justice R. MAHADEVAN.
Between:Kamal Kishore Sehgal & Ors. Versus Murti Devi.
Date of Judgment: 19-09-2024