Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on September 19, 2024 said that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation that where the language employed in the instrument is clear and unambiguous, the common literary meaning ought to be assigned in interpreting the same and one should not fall back on any other inference. 

"Only the expression in clear words contained in the instrument/document must be considered and not the surrounding circumstances. In short, literal construction must be considered first, rather than going into the intention behind what is said in the instrument/document if the language of the instrument is clear and unambiguous," a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan said.

The bench set aside the first appellate court's order of November 1, 2011, and restored the judgment of the court of first instance of February 22, 2002.

It allowed the appeal filed by one Kamal Kishore Sehgal (Deceased) through legal representatives, who were defendants in a suit of permanent injunction filed in respect of a passage.

The suit with regard to 'common passage’ in Delhi's Civil Lines area was dismissed by the court of first instance, but in appeal the judgment and order of the trial court were reversed and the suit stood decreed.

The bench noted that the court of first instance, applying the principle of interpretation and upon proper and due consideration of the recitals in the two sale deeds, categorically ruled that it was only the plaintiff-respondents, the owner of the front portion A, who had to sacrifice for the 15 feet wide passage and not the defendants-appellants who owned the back portion B. 

The court read the entire sale deeds and even considered the map attached thereto.

"We are satisfied that the court of first instance has rightly interpreted the two documents to conclude that the common passage referred thereto is only in respect of common passage marked in the letters X-Y as this was the passage supposed to be left aside by the plaintiff-respondents, the owners of the portion A for common use by both the parties, with no stipulation that the owners of the back portion are also to leave a similar passage in their portion for use by the other party," the bench said.

Court found that the first appellate court completely misconstrued the two sale deeds and simply for the reason that the passage Y-Z and Z-Z1 were in alignment with the passage X-Y left by the plaintiff-respondents for common use and held that the entire passage from X-Z1 was a common passage for the use of both the parties. 

"This is something which is completely erroneous and in conflict with the clear recitals of the sale deeds. The first appellate Court has unnecessarily laid undue emphasis on the words ‘common passage’ to hold that it refers to the entire passage from X-Z1 otherwise it would defeat the whole intention behind using the phrase ‘common passage’ in the two sale deeds," the court said.

On the simple reading of the contents of the two sale deeds, the bench opined that the common passage referred to in those sale deeds and the map thereto was only in context with the common passage X-Y which was supposed to be left by the purchasers/owners of the portion A i.e., plaintiff-respondents for ingress and egress of the owners of portion B as they had no other alternative way of access to the Battery Lane or as a matter of fact to any other road or lane. 

Since the defendants-appellants under their sale deed were not supposed to leave any such passage in the portion purchased or owned by them, the plaintiff-respondents have no right to use any part of portion B which exclusively belongs to the defendants appellants, the bench held.

It said that there was otherwise no justification for allowing the plaintiffs respondents to have access or use of the passage Y-Z or ZZ1 comprised in portion B as there was no access to their portion from the said passage. 

Simply for the reason that the said passage is in alignment with the common passage X-Y, the plaintiff-respondents cannot claim any right over it, the court held.

Case Title: Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr LRs & Ors Vs Murti Devi (Dead) Thr LRs