Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is claimed that in the sanction plan of plot no.4 (of the appellants) was specifically having a sewerage which is directly going to the main road as plot no.4 is abutting to the main road which fact is admitted by the appellants in civil suit filed on their behalf. It is further submitted that plot no.4 was constructed after obtaining sanction building plan in the year 1989 and in the site plan, there was no mention that sewage line Prof. (Dr.)SP. Singh and Ors vs North DMC and anr. will be carried out from the land of plot no. 5 or from the no man's land between plot no. 4 and 5. It is further submitted that chain of documents filed by appellants did not show that Nanak Chand, common owner of plot no.4 & 5, had created any easement rights in favour of Mohan Lal and Promila Bhatia purchaser of plot no. 4 to carry sewage from the land of plot no. 5 and that when same is not done by him, subsequent buyers and sellers cannot create the said right unless agreed by owner of plot no. 5.

24. It is further revealed from perusal of sale documents of the residents of Plot No. 4, Nanak Enclave, Delhi and other Prof. (Dr.)SP. Singh and Ors vs North DMC and anr. connected documents that its building plan was sanctioned on 24.04.1989 and therefore, the building must have been constructed only after the year 1989. It is apparent that boundary of Plot no. 5 Nanak Enclave, Delhi is at western side of Plot No.4 and in the sale documents of Plot No. 5, it is mentioned that boundary of Plot no. 4 Nanak Enclave is at eastern side which corroborates that both the Plot no. 4 & 5 are adjacent to each other touching their boundary. Those sale documents of Plot no. 4, Nanak Enclave, Delhi had not been disputed by the appellants. There is also no contrary record pertaining to the aforesaid layout of Plots no. 4 and 5. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that there was no open land between Plot No. 4 & 5 and thus, the plea taken by the appellants that there is open land between these two plots does not hold any merits. The appellate tribunal has rightly held that there was no open land/common land between Plot No. 4 and 5.