10ft house belongs to the appellant/first defendant shown as Northern boundary. Therefore, admittedly it is a common passage and as observed by the Court below there is no proof that Ex.B4/deed of agreement relied by the first defendant was implemented by putting up garage shed at the dead end of the common passage. Furthermore, there is no proof on the side of the first defendant to establish that they purchased the said right along with property while they purchase. Even the settlement deed executed in favour of her daughter was marked as Ex.B5, which shows that only the property which they purchased boundary alone was settled there is no mentioning about the alleged usage of 15x10 ft common passage. Moreover, in O.S No. 784 of 1999 the first defendant, before the City Civil Court, Chennai, filed the suit against the plaintiff's vendor Latha in respect of the same common passage when the same was dismissed by the Trial Court there is no boundary was perfected against the suit. Admittedly, the present plaintiff already not party in the said suit. However, the relief claimed by the first defendant in that suit in respect of common passage also not been accepted by the Court below.
