Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"49. Before dwelling upon the issues framed in the present case, it is necessary to reproduce certain covenants in the sale deed of the plaintiff and that of the defendant in order to determine the issues.
Page & Sale Deed of Plaintiff Page & Sale Deed of No. Para The Vendors have 3rd para AND WHEREAS continued also executed a of the Vendors, from General Power of internal through attorney, Page No. Attorney dated page for their bonafide 21 to 22 15/9/04 in favour of No.11 needs and Shri Ajay Bharti, requirements Shri Sanjay Bhatia, have agreed to Shri Ashwini Anand sell, convey, and Shri Abhinav transfer and Anand, in respect of assign to the entire third floor with Vendee to which terrace excluding the the Vendors area of servant hereby confirm quarters with right to and the Vendee construct and own has agreed to any area/floor on the purchase the third floor of the Entire Second main building and Floor with terrace thereupon common lift and subsequent facility along terraces thereupon with one servant and there above up quarters (8'x6' to the limits of sky each) on the top along with terrace and one proportionate covered car undivided, indivisible porch on Ground and impartible Floor (Garage ownership rights in located at the said plot of land Ground Floor measuring 1000 Sq along with Yds bearing No.B- Terrace Rights up 54A, situated at to sky as per Greater Kailash plaint annexed) Part-1, New Delhi (duly sanctioned which has been duly vide C.C. No. registered as File No. document 44/CC/B/ 52/05 No.112798, in Addl. dated Book No. IV, Vol. No. 17.11.2004)along 6159 on pages 184 to with 190, on 15/9/04, in proportionate, the office of Sub undivided, Registrar, indivisible and Pitampura, New impartible Delhi. ownership rights in the said plot of Land measuring1000 Sq Yds, bearing No.B-54Asituated at Greater Kailash Part-
internal right, the right to use internal matter of right, page all entrances, page the right to use No.39 passages; staircases; No.19 all entrances, his own servant common lift quarters and toilet; facility, passages, driveway; parking; staircase - up to and other common terrace, their own facilities as are servant quarters available in the said and toilet, building. driveway, parking, and other common facilities as are available in the said building.
58. Ld counsel for plaintiff has argued that since his sale deed is prior in time, therefore, conflicting covenants of the sale deed of the defendant No.1 cannot be implemented and the plaintiff's right cannot be prejudiced.
59. In this regard, it is stated that all the clauses of the sale deed have to be read together and in harmony and none of the clause in the sale deed of any of the parties cannot be read in isolation to the exclusion of other covenants in the sale deed of the both parties. It is very much clear that staircase is common facility for all the occupants as discussed above and, therefore, clause on page No.46 of the sale deed of the plaintiff shows that access to the servant quarters shall be only from spiral staircase and not from common/main staircase cannot be read in a manner that the occupants of the lower floor are denied access to the common staircase eventually leading to the terrace. The reading of the said clause clearly shows that said clause was put for the servants to access their servant quarters on the terrace through the spiral staircase and not from the common staircase. It is pertinent to mention here that spiral staircase has already been removed by MCD which has come in the evidence of the plaintiff himself. Therefore, the defendant being the legal owner of the2nd floor of the same building cannot be denied access to the terrace even though the servant quarter is not inexistence but he has right to approach his water tanks. In sale deed of the plaintiff himself, it is clearly mentioned that plaintiff shall have full ownership right on the terrace except for the area earmarked for the three servant quarters meant for lower floors and it is also clearly stated that occupants shall be having a right to access their water tanks. Even the lower floor occupants were given right to put dish-antenna on their servant quarters. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, plaintiff can claim exclusive rights over the staircase from third floor of the leading to the terrace. Though, he is owner of 3rd floor and as well as substantial part of the terrace but staircase shall remain common. PW-1 has admitted during his cross examination that he had installed the concrete staircase from inside the 3rd floor to the terrace. It is pertinent to mention here that entire sale deed of the plaintiff is silent about this fact that at the time of execution of the sale deed by builder in favour of the plaintiff, staircase from 3rd floor leading to the terrace was personalized. He stated during his cross examination that he did not remember whether at the time of purchasing the third floor, the said staircase was not a part of sanction plan. There are certain photographs on record though they have not been exhibited but they are in tune with testimony of PW-1 himself showing that how a channel gate has been installed at the third floor obstructing the access of the staircase from 3rd floor till terrace which is already admitted by plaintiff in his cross examination. Even in his written submission, plaintiff has stated that he is ready to give permission to access to the defendant to the terrace through common staircase for cleaning of water tank subject to prior notice/permission of plaintiff. Since this is common staircase, it is meant for the common use of the plaintiff and the defendant and he has no right to install such a gate over it. Therefore, it is held that passages claimed to be common i.e. staircase herein is available for the common use of both the plaintiff and the defendant. Since the obstruction has been created during the pendency of the suit itself, plaintiff is directed to remove the same.
―4. The two other grievances made on behalf of the Plaintiffs on 25 April, 2018 were that in the first week of April-2018 without the consent of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have installed CCTV cameras over the entrance doors of Flat Nos. 5 and 6 on the 2 Floor of Rutton Manor, in which Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are residing and are monitoring who is coming in or out from the said flats thereby invading the privacy of the Plaintiffs and further that the Defendants have locked the access door to the common terrace of the building Rutton Manor, because of which the Plaintiffs are unable to have access to the common terrace and the water tanks and lift room, which are located on the terrace. The Plaintiffs also made a grievance that the Defendants are stopping the water supply from the water tanks to their respective flats. In view thereof, this Court suggested that Shri Samir Pandit, Advocate from Wadia Ghandy and Company appearing for the Plaintiffs and Shri Amin, Advocate from B. Amin and Company appearing for the Defendants, should visit the Suit premises along with a person dealing in the business of installing and maintaining CCTV's to find out a way to amicably resolve the disputes qua the said two issues between the Plaintiffs and theDefendants.