Restrictive Covenants in Sale Deeds for Beneficial Property Enjoyment Are Enforceable Under Section 11 of Transfer of Property Act

The plaintiff (owner of Survey No. 3334) and the defendant (owner of Survey No. 3338) purchased adjacent properties from a common predecessor, Anvar Husain Shaikh, via sale deeds executed on the same day

The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from installing a full-sized door in her back wall facing the plaintiff’s courtyard, alleging it would violate privacy and ingress/egress rights

The defendant’s sale deed (Exh. 52) explicitly prohibited opening a door at the backside, directing access through the southern public way

The Trial Court initially restrained the door but allowed an "average size window"

Upon review, the Trial Court modified this to specify a 3x3 ft window at a minimum height of 5 ft from the surface

The defendant appealed, seeking the right to install a door based on inherent access rights

1. Whether the defendant has a legal right to install a door on the southern side of the back wall of her property at Survey No. 3338

2. Whether the restrictions imposed regarding the dimensions (3x3 ft) and height (5 ft) of the window are legally sustainable under the Transfer of Property Act

The Court primarily applied Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, specifically the second paragraph (proviso), which validates restrictions on the manner of enjoyment of a transferred property if such restrictions are intended to secure the beneficial enjoyment of another piece of property belonging to the transferor

The Court also recognized the principle of easementary rights for ventilation versus the right to privacy (specifically within the cultural context of the parties)

The Court observed that since both parties acquired their properties from a common owner on the same day, the restrictive covenant in the defendant’s sale deed (Exh. 52) prohibiting a back door was legally binding to ensure the "peaceful and beneficial enjoyment" of the plaintiff's adjacent land

Under Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, such a restriction is an exception to the general rule against stripping a transferee of absolute enjoyment

Regarding the window, the Court reasoned that while the defendant held an easementary right to ventilation, this must be balanced against the plaintiff’s right to privacy. Given that both parties are of the Muslim faith, the Court found that a window placed lower than 5 feet would facilitate a breach of privacy; thus, the 3x3 ft dimension and height restriction were deemed reasonable and sufficient to satisfy the defendant's easement rights without infringing on the plaintiff's interests

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s reviewed order. It held that the defendant is permanently restrained from installing a full-sized door in the back wall. The defendant is permitted only to maintain a window for ventilation, strictly measuring 3x3 feet and situated at least 5 feet above the ground surface