Manmohan Sarin, J.
(1) This revision petition is filed against an order dated 26.4.1995, by which the learned Civil Judge, dismissed the suit for permanent injunction, filed by the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge held that the suit was meritless without any cause of action.
(2) The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as under:- (i) The petitioner and the respondent No. 1. were the joint owners of a two and half storeyd house bearing No. B-134, Dera Ismail Khan Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Delhi. (ii) The petitioner and respondent No. 1, carried out a partition of the above property in terms of which the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were left with 50% undivided share each in the freehold land admeasuring 268.22 Sq. yards. The petitioner became the absolute owner of the structure on the ground floor together with mezanine floor as shown in Red colour in the plan attached to the partition deed. The respondent No. 1 became the absolute owner of the entire first floor and second floor structure with its roof and half undivided share in the land underneath as shown in green colour in the plan annexed to the partition deed. The partition deed was duly registered with the Sub Registrar. (iii) Certain portions as shown in Yellow colour in the plan annexed were for common use by both the parties and their legal heirs. The ownership rights of the said portion in Yellow colour on the ground floor were to vest with the petitioner. However, respondent No. 1, which term included his heirs were conferred with the right to park their vehicle in the common ground floor portion. The relevant Clause No. 3, of the partition deed which may be usefully reproduced :- That the portions shown in ''Yellow'' Colours in the plan attached shall remain common and shall be commonly used by both the parties Along with their legal heirs. The ''Party No. 1 shall have no concern, claim, ownership rights etc. with the aforesaid portions on Ground floor shown in ''Yellow'' colours in the plan attached but the ''Party No. 1 shall have a right to park his vehicle in common Ground Floor portion only. (iv) That the petitioner in the event filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that only a license had been granted to respondent No. 1, to park his vehicle on the ground floor. Further that the petitioner had orally terminated the license on 18.3.1995, but despite the same, the respondent continued to park his vehicle in the Yellow portion illegally. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 1 has no right or authority to park the vehicle after termination of the license.
(3) The Trial Court vide the impugned order, held that reading of Clause 3 above, made it clear that respondent No. 1, has granted a right of user even though the respondent No. 1 has relinquished its ownership rights over the same. The relinquishment of ownership rights was subject to right of user. The Court held that the rights of the respondent were not in nature of a permissive user or license.
(4) Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:- (i) The Yellow portion was the exclusive property of the petitioner and it did not remain the joint property. The respondent had only been granted a permissive user as regards the parking of the vehicle and it was a license which was terminable at Will. Counsel further contended that access of the respondent was not being denied and accordingly it was not an easement of necessity but in the nature of a license. (ii) Clause No. 3 of the partition deed contains inherent contradictions inasmuch as while the petitioner had the exclusive ownership of the Yellow portion, yet a right to park the vehicle therein was given to respondent No. 1. There was an ambiguity in the Clause and Therefore, the Trial Court should have permitted evidence to be led rather than dismiss the suit, holding that it is as not maintainable and not disclosing a cause of action. According to the petitioner the suit raised issues which required trial and evidence.
(5) The submissions made by the petitioner are devoid of merit. The property in question was a joint property which was partitioned. In pursuance to the partition, which was duly registered, the ground floor and the mezanine floor fell to the share of the petitioner while the first and second floor fell to the share of the respondent. For enjoyment of the first floor and second floor of the property, access to and user of common areas on ground floor was required. The parties, Therefore, made specific stipulation in the partition deed that the said area shall remain common and shall be commonly used. However, the ownership rights with regard to the ground floor, common area shown in Yellow colour were given to the petitioner subject to respondent No. 1, having a right of common user as well as a right to park the vehicle in the common ground floor portion.
(6) It is clear from the Clause No. 3 that the right conferred to the respondent is not in the nature of a license or permissive user i.e. terminable at Will. The right is a permanent one conferred in pursuance to the partition of the property. Besides it cannot be lost site of that the ownership of the land underneath still remains undivided with both the parties having 50% interest in the land. There is no merit in the petitioner''s contention that there is ambiguity in Clause 3 of the partition deed and the case required evidence to be led. The petitioner''s case itself is that the nature of the right conferred in terms of Clause 3 is of a license terminable at a Will. There is no averment in the plaint that there is any agreement or understanding other than that contained in the partition deed, having been reached, between the parties based on which evidence could be said to be required. Accordingly this is not even a case, where statement of parties was required to be recorded under Order X CPC .
(7) The claim of the petitioner in the suit is wholly vexatious and meritless. The plaint does not disclose a right to sue or a cause of action. It is not a case, where on a meaningful reading of plaint, it discloses some cause of action or raises questions that require trial. This is a case, which would fall within the category of claims that are wholly vexatious and meritless and which ought to be nipped in the bud in exercise of powers under Order Vii Rule 11 of CPC . The impugned order docs not suffer from any material irregularity or error of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.
