J RAMACHANDRAN Vs. SAROJINI NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal arises out of concurrent findings of Courts below dismissing the appellants/plaintiffs' suit for declaration that private common passage is width of 20' and for Permanent Injunction.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this second appeal are as follows:- It is common ground that plaint 'A' Schedule Property measuring 16 grounds, consists of building, situated in Kalathiappa Mudali Street, Vepery, Madras-7, originally belonged to the seventh Defendant. The seventh Defendant put up row of houses long time back and sold to various persons. Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 6 are purchasers either from the seventh Defendant or from his alienees. The dispute is as to the breadth of common passage left by the seventh Defendant in between two rows of houses running north to south. Western row consists of D.Nos.31 to 36 and eastern row consists of D.Nos.27-30.

(3.) REFERRING to the Sale Deeds that plaintiffs' documents seldom support plaintiffs' case that the breadth of common passage is 20', trial Court declined to grant the relief of declaration and Permanent Injunction. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred appeal. Confirming the findings of trial Court, the lower Appellate Court held that there was error in the Sale Deed as to the width of the common passage. The lower Appellate Court took the view that the width of common passage 20' in Exs.A-1, A-4 and A-6 have been mentioned wrongly and the same would not confer title upon the plaintiffs since the plaintiff's Sale Deeds themselves contain the width of common pathway as 15'.