Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: common open plot in B.Shyamkumar vs Francis George on 4 August, 2009Matching Fragments
(2) Since the 33 feet passage is a common pathway none of the plot owners including the petitioner and the respondent are entitled to put up any kind of construction.
(3) The Advocate Commissioner has noted that there is a small opening in plot No.4 towards the passage with a shutter. There should be no attempt on the part of the revision petitioner to widen the said opening.
(4) The common passage is only for the purpose of ingress and egress for the respective plot owners. It should not be used as a parking place.