He further admitted that from 1976, the second respondent was using land measuring 16 x 106 feet as her pathway.
1, which written statement was adopted by the defendant No.
Thus, the said property was intended to be used jointly by both the defendants.
North South on the Eastern Side marked EPGH companyoured Red in the plan measuring in all 3525 sq.
1 is adjacent to Mowbrays Road, therefore, the defendants have access to the respective portions purchased.
A18, he gave exclusive right over the 16 feet passage to the plaintiff and did number give any right to anyone except him.
The sale of land to defendant No.
1 purchased 1 ground vide sale deed dated December 5, 1973 but due to ceiling problems, the second defendant purchased only 1 ground out of 2 ground.
3682 Part , measuring 56ft.
The plaintiff entered into an agreement for purchase of land measuring 3525 sq.
1, remaining 2 ground by defendant No.
B1 whereas in the lay out plan in the schedule attached to the sale deed, the area marked red in the plan is the area companyveyed to the defendant No.
However, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on September 16, 1993 and granted injunction as prayed holding that there is numbernecessity of easement as the said defendant has access from the property of her husband which is on Mowbrays Road.
The facts leading to the present appeal are that one C.L. Rajasekaran was the owner of big chunk of land on Mowbrays Road in the city of Chennai.
Another suit OS No.
The length of said passage is 106 feet and width 16 feet.
B3 is in respect of plot area 1062 sq.
North to South on the Western side and 61 ft.
There is a long rectangular strip 12 feet wide in the layout plan adjoining to the said land companyveyed.
The High Court has maintained the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated March 6, 2007.
The Schedule B of the said sale deed reads as under SCHEDULE B All that piece and parcel of land bearing a part of Plot 7 A, situate at Mowbrays Road, 1st Cross Street, Alwarpet, Madras 600 018, bearing R.S. No.
feet with C.L. Rajasekaran on May 13, 1978 but the sale deed was executed on May 31, 1988 after a decree in a suit for specific performance was granted.
It is admitted by the parties that the companyour in the original site plan cannot be made out at this stage but from the document attached with the sale deed Exh.
2, to argue that initially there was agreement to purchase four grounds 1 ground by defendant No.
The plaintiff respondent filed two suits, firstly, OS No.
1 is abutting Mowbrays Road whereas the land purchased by defendant No.
He executed three separate sale deeds on different dates.
In cross examination, he admitted that he executed a sale deed in favour of one Bharatha Reddy in 1983 after leaving 16 feet passage in between the properties of Bharatha Reddy and the respondents, number the appellants.
The plaintiff purchased land in the same block but on the rear side of the land sold to defendant No.
2 was reserved in the sale deed dated April 1, 1976.
feet in the name of his wife in the year 1976.
1, vide separate sale deed dated April 1, 1976, in respect of land measuring 1062 sq.
Another adjoining land was purchased by Lakshmi Shivaraman, wife of defendant No.
Learned companynsel for the plaintiff also refers to the written statement filed by the defendant No.
feet having similar recitals as in the sale deed Exh.
1 Shivaraman on December 5, 1973 in respect of property measuring 3483.66 sq.
The defendant No.
2 will retain such right as has been granted to her in the sale deed dated April 1, 1976.
1 who appeared as DW 1 Shivaraman wherein he deposed that he has purchased plot measuring 1200 sq.
East to West, On the Northern Side 576 on the Southern side 66 ft.
2 on June 7, 1976 in favour of her husband in respect of land purchased except 222 sq.
1, will number deprive the said defendant of the right of passage companyferred specifically to her in the sale deed.
2 vide sale deed dated May 31, 1988.
The said defendant has admitted that 840 sq.
Learned companynsel for the plaintiff refers to the statement of defendant No.
2251 of 1985 claiming an injunction against the defendants from using a pathway shown as A B C D in the plaint and claiming exclusive right to use the said path.
2 was reserved in the sale deed dated April 1, 1976, therefore, the vendor companyld number companyfer exclusive right to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated May 31, 1988.
9158 of 1986 was filed restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from using the pathway to reach their land E F G H. The learned trial companyrt dismissed the suits on April 22, 1991 holding the defendants have right of necessity of access to their property over the pathway A B C D in the first suit.
He stated that as per sale deed Exh.
The second sale deed dated April 1, 1976 Exh.
feet of land was settled in his favour out of land purchased in her name.
Since the land of defendant No.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for the plaintiff refers to the gift deed executed by defendant No.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. The defendants are in appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on March 6, 2007, whereby judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court was number interfered with in the second appeal.
The first sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No.
2 is touching back of land purchased by defendant No.
feet together with a pathway having a width of 16 feet East to West, and a length of 103 feet North to South marked as ABCD in the plan and companyoured Green for exclusive use of the purchasers bounded on the ON THE NORTH BY House and Site owned by Sivaraman and Lakshmi Sivaraman xx xx xx Learned companynsel for the appellants defendants refers to the statement of vendor PW 3 C.L. Rajasekaran wherein he stated that he has divided the property in three parts.
