1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.429 OF 2009 IN L.C. SUIT NO.2965 OF 2004 Mr.Rajiv Ram Labhaya Suri ..... Appellant (Ori. Plaintiff) vs. Mandakini D. Bhalerao & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.P.G. Lad i/by Mr.A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for appellant. Mr.Y.S.Bhate i/by Mr.S.K. Sthalekar,Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 25th September, 2009. PC : 1. This First Appeal arises out of the order dated 30th August 2008 dismissing Suit No.2965 of 2004 filed by the appellant. Respondents are the original defendants. Heard the Advocates. Records and Proceedings are dispensed with. 2. By his suit, the appellant sought two reliefs of injunction. The relief at prayer clause (a) concerns a mandatory order directing respondent No.2- Corporation for grant of water connection to his premises. Prayer clause (b) is for a permanent injunction to restrain respondent no.1 inter alia from obstructing the appellant in constructing a second main gate to the property on the North-East side with the width of 10 feet. The plaint does not contain any relief against respondents no. 2 3,4 and 5. 3. During the course of arguments in the suit before the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellant made a statement that the dispute as regards water supply to his premises along with the water tank therefor was settled and the appellant was restricting the suit only to the dispute pertaining to the gate. It is the appellant’s case that by virtue of the agreement dated 11th October 1990 (Exhibit 16) and the consent terms filed in S.C. Suit No.4772 of 1995 (Exhibit 10), he is entitled to the exclusive use of North-East gate to the property. Respondent No. 1 denies the claim and alleges that the appellant has been using the North-West gate without any obstruction or difficulty all along. 4. Since the claim of the appellant to the exclusive use of North-East gate allegedly arises out the agreement and consent terms at Exhibits 16 and 10 respectively, the learned trial Judge in his judgment has quoted the relevant portions. The same read as follows : Condition 6 of Exhibit 16 : “It is hereby agreed between the parties that all the open space surrounding the building will remain as personal property of Mrs.Bhalerao and that Mr.R.L. Suri will not claim any right, title and interest in the open space. It is hereby agreed that 3 Mrs.Bhalerao is entitled to use the entire ground floor for herself and entire first floor for Mr.Suri and entire second floor for Mrs.Bhalerao”. Condition 6 of Exhibit 10 : “The defendant shall be exclusively entitled to the ground open space, Ground Floor, First Floor and second floor of the building. The Defendant shall be entitled to use, occupy, enjoy and/or to sell, assign, transfer, dispose of and/or to deal in any manner with the said ground open space, Ground floors or any part thereof subject to payment of usual taxes and common expenses to be shared with the plaintiff or his assigns and the Defendant or any assigns or persons claiming through the Defendant shall have no right of whatever nature on the Third and Fourth Floors premises of the suit building. The Defendant or any assigns or persons shall have no right, title or interest in the Third Floor and Fourth Floor, premises of the suit building”. 5. On perusal of the above portions of the agreements, the learned trial Judge has held that the terms narrated above do not show that the appellant has any right over ground open space, ground floor, first and second floor of the building. Instead respondent no.1 is exclusively entitled to the same. She is entitled to use, occupy, enjoy and/or sell, assign, transfer, dispose of and/or to deal in any manner with the grounds open space and ground floor etc. The appellant is undoubtedly entitled the right of ingress and egress to his property through the 4 ground floor space. However, he cannot claim any right over the same as per his own wish or desire. There is no grievance raised by the appellant that he has either been prevented ingress and egress to his property or from enjoying his property. The appellant has been using his property and also parking his car on the ground floor. Since respondent no.1 is exclusively entitled to the open space of ground floor, she is within her right to refuse the appellant any permission to have an exclusive gate at North-East corner. The learned trial Judge has rightly decided the dispute. There cannot be any other view about the same. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the compilation filed by the appellant. It is patent that there is no question whatsoever either of fact or law arising for consideration of the Court, in this case. Therefore, the First Appeal is dismissed in limine. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.]