Jeevraj Sethia as barred by Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is noticed that the plaintiff – Roshan Lal had purchased the property in question from some other person, in which, the restriction about common use of the open chowk was stipulated in the sale deed but the respondents-defendants had purchased the land in question from some other different persons and, therefore, the restriction about the common use of the chowk in favour of defendants' predecessor cannot be said to be operative against the present defendants. The second part or the exception to the main provision of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the sale-deeds were not by the common seller and no such restriction could be so stipulated in the sale deed of the defendants in violation of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and, therefore, the learned First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-Roshan Lal S/o Jeevraj Sethia as hit by Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In this view of the matter, the finding of the learned First Appellate Court in the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2007, that the plaintiff-Roshan Lal, who is a neighbour of the property in question, had no right to enforce such a condition by filing the suit seeking mandatory injunction against the
