Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s partition directions and rejection of the appellant’s claim to use the front driveway. Although the plaint concerned the second floor and terrace, the appellant himself raised the common-area dispute, which was tried on a specific issue. The property’s separate side-lane access and the will supported the directions, while access to shared water pipes and the booster pump remained protected. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether adjudication of common-area rights exceeded the suit’s scope after the defendant raised that dispute.
- Whether the partition and access directions were supported by the will and property layout.
Held
- The appellant’s written statement put common-area rights in issue and led to a specific trial issue and evidence. Having invited that adjudication, he could not object that the resulting directions exceeded the suit’s scope merely because the plaint originally concerned the upper floor and terrace. (¶¶ 3, 9, 10, 11)
- The parties’ rights followed their mother’s will. In this property’s particular corner-plot layout, a separate side-lane entrance provided direct staircase access to the appellant’s floor, supporting rejection of his claimed front-driveway use. The conclusion did not establish a general rule against shared driveway rights. (¶¶ 2, 9, 10)
- The High Court preserved necessary access to the water pipes and booster pump in the rear courtyard. Its partition decree and common-area directions accorded with the evidence and required no interference. (¶¶ 5, 10, 11, 12)
Result
Appeals dismissed; High Court’s partition and access directions upheld. No costs.