Restrictive Covenants in Property Transfers Upheld: Gujarat High Court Affirms Limitation on Opening Door to Protect Privacy and Beneficial Enjoyment Under Section 11 of Transfer of Property Act

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: Abedabibi Mohammadhusain vs Hanifabibi Noormohammad

Citation: R/First Appeal No. 128 of 2006

High Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi

Date of Judgment: 24th June, 2026

Area of Law: Property Law, Transfer of Property Act, Easement Rights, Restrictive Covenants, Muslim Personal Law (Privacy)

2. Judgment in Brief

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a First Appeal challenging the trial court's order restraining the defendant from opening a full-size door on the back wall of her property, while permitting only a window of 3x3 feet placed at a height of 5 feet from the surface. The dispute arose between two neighbours who purchased properties from a common predecessor-in-title through separate sale deeds executed on the same date. The defendant's sale deed contained a specific restrictive covenant that she shall not be entitled to open any door at the backside of the premises. The High Court upheld the trial court's findings, applying the proviso to Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which validates restrictions imposed on one property for securing the beneficial enjoyment of another property. The Court also considered privacy concerns of the parties, who profess the Muslim faith, in fixing the height restriction for the window.

3. Relevant Facts

The Properties and Parties

• The plaintiff (respondent herein) is the owner of Survey No. 3334, containing 18 sq. feet of land in Jamalpur Ward No. 1, Ahmedabad.

• The defendant (appellant herein) is the owner of Survey No. 3338 in the same locality.

• Both properties are diagonally situated in relation to each other, with the backsides of both properties facing each other.

• The plaintiff uses Survey No. 3335, which is behind the back wall of her house, for ingress and egress.

• A toilet belonging to the plaintiff is adjacent to the defendant's property.

Common Predecessor-in-Title

• Both parties purchased their respective properties from a common predecessor, Anvar Husain Shaikh.

• The sale deeds (Exhs. 51 and 52) were executed on the same date, i.e., 21.02.1989.

The Dispute

• The defendant attempted to put a door or gate on the southern side of her back wall without obtaining permission and without having any legal right.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.