This matter pertains to a property dispute involving two residential properties, House A and House B, situated in West Bengal, separated by a 1.5-foot-wide passage which belongs to A. It is 40 feet in length. In the course of this passage, on B's side, 18 feet constituted of a 6-foot-high boundary wall. The remaining 22 feet has 25-foot-high wall of house B.
Ownership and Passage Details:
House A is owned by P, so he exclusively owns the 1.5-foot-wide passage.
House B was originally owned by G, who is now deceased. G left four legal heirs, including S.
The boundary wall of House B was set back approximately 8 inches (resulting in the passage's widdth being increased to roughly 1.5ft + 8 inches in this widened part of length 18 feet), resulting in House B’s drain being located within the widened part of the passage owned by P. This was done 28 years back. Also, there's a grill gate at the end of this widened part of the passage that leads onto the road outside. The locking mechanism of this gate is attached to the boundary wall of house B.
Agreement:
An agreement was executed between P and G at that time, stipulating:
P enjoys unrestricted use of the widened passage and the exposed drain.
G’s warisan may access the passage solely for maintenance of House B or its drain, subject to prior permission from P.
This agreement is binding on the warisan of both parties.
The agreement between P and G was executed on a Rs. 20 stamp paper at a private residence and was never registered.
Recent Developments:
Following G’s demise, complications arose regarding House B’s ownership and entry into the passage.
Sale of House B:
S, one of G’s heirs and the sole occupant of House B, sold the property to M by concealing the existence of the other heirs.
Now, M is citing the old agreement between P and G to justify carrying out maintenance work. He has begun repair and painting activities and insists on performing the same from P’s side by entering the common passage.
P has completely objected to this, specially in the 22-foot section and, for the remaining 18 feet, suggested that workers use harnesses instead of erecting bamboo scaffolding — given that previous careless work without safety measures has already caused several damages and inconvenience for P.
In response to the objection, M became agitated and threatened to “go legal.” He also demanded that P remove the locking mechanism of the grill gate leading to House B. Throughout, M has never requested permission for such work — rather, he has dictated that masons, plumbers, and others will proceed. Additionally, the sunshades of House A have been used extensively without P’s consent.
P is no more interested in the agreement and is even willing to shift the wall to its original place (though, being enjoyed for more than 20 years, easement rules must be in force now). M also initiated this conversation once, but now it seems he's not interested in returning the wall to its original place.
Now, what steps can M take? what steps should P take? Is the objection by P absolutely ok? What other objections can he make?
