JUDGMENT : N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J. 1. This is a fight between two brothers-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao and B.D. Sridhara Rao. 2. B.D. Sridhara Rao instituted a suit seeking for an injunction to restrain his elder brother-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No. 52/34/5 situate at first floor, measuring 25 feet x 40 feet. 3. B.D. Sridhara Rao stated that this property had ingress and egress to the first floor from the road through a common passage measuring 3 feet x 68 feet and common passage, in turn, lead to another passage measuring 3 feet x 25 feet situate on the western side of the property to facilitate entry through a staircase which measured 3 feet width and 12 feet in height. He also stated that the staircase was abutting the first floor property, which was situate on the southern side of the property bearing No. 52/34/5. 4. It was his case that the entire property bearing No. 52/34 measuring a total of about 4333 square feet situate at 30th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560082, was initially owned by his grand-mother B. Seethamma, who had conveyed it to his mother-B. Kashiamma under the registered sale deed dated 01.07.1964. He submitted that his mother, B. Kashiamma during her lifetime, divided the property into six portions and allotted the same to her six sons, including himself and his elder brother-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao. 5. B.D. Sridhara Rao stated that he was allotted the property measuring 10 feet x 52 feet which was abutting the property measuring 25 feet x 52 feet allotted to his elder brother-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao (defendant) and these properties had been described as ‘E’ and ‘C’ schedules in the settlement deed. He stated that his other brothers had also been allotted various other portions, over which there was no dispute. 6. He stated that both himself and his elder brother-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao were enjoying their respective properties measuring 10 feet x 52 feet and 25 feet x 52 feet, along with all appurtenants and easements to the entire property. 7. He stated that his other brothers had also been allotted various other portions, over which there was no dispute. 6. He stated that both himself and his elder brother-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao were enjoying their respective properties measuring 10 feet x 52 feet and 25 feet x 52 feet, along with all appurtenants and easements to the entire property. 7. He submitted that his other brother-B.D. Gopal Rao who had been allotted the first floor portion (which was situated above the property which had been allotted to himself and his elder brother B.D. Suryanarayana Rao) measuring 25 feet x 40 feet (described as ‘D’ schedule), sold his property situate in the first floor measuring 25 feet x 40 feet to him under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.2005. 8. He stated that the ingress and egress to this first floor portion was from the northern side common passage measuring 3 feet x 68 feet, which was abutting the property described as ‘F’ schedule, which had been allotted to B.D. Damodar and which in turn led to another passage measuring 3 feet x 25 feet which was situate on the western side i.e. in front of the properties allotted to B.D. Suryanarayana Rao and B.D. Sridhara Rao. 9. He contended that the entry to first floor portion was through the staircase which measured 3 feet in width and 12 feet in height, and which was abutting the first floor property. He also stated that the common passage had been in existence ever since the property was constructed upon and it had also contained a well and other appurtenants, as detailed in the settlement deed. He stated that the access to both his elder brother-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao’s property as well as B.D. Gopal Rao’s property was through the passage. He stated that pursuant to the purchase from B.D. Gopal Rao, he was in possession and enjoyment of the first floor property and the Khata was also registered in his name. 10. He stated that B.D. Suryanarayana Rao suddenly started making attempts to demolish the staircase leading upto the first floor and he was preventing him to gain access from the common passage measuring 3 feet x 25 feet which was situate on the western side and which lead to the staircase of the first floor portion of the schedule property. 10. He stated that B.D. Suryanarayana Rao suddenly started making attempts to demolish the staircase leading upto the first floor and he was preventing him to gain access from the common passage measuring 3 feet x 25 feet which was situate on the western side and which lead to the staircase of the first floor portion of the schedule property. He stated that he had been putting up a wall on the new bathroom and was closing the well in the ground floor so as to install a water tank adjacent to the room in the first floor and this water tank would be an obstacle to his privacy. He also stated that the well in the portion of the elder brother-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao was common to him and to his elder brother, as clearly indicated in the settlement deed. He stated that since an attempt was being made to disturb his possession, he was constrained to file a suit, after his attempts through the authorities to prevent the illegal activities did not lead to any result. 11. On being summoned, B.D. Suryanarayana Rao entered appearance and contested the suit by filing a written statement. 12. In the written statement, the execution of the settlement deed was not disputed. He however stated that the staircase which B.D. Sridhara Rao referred to was not in the passage as stated in the plaint nor in any of the common spaces and was situate entirely inside his property. He stated that he was in no way trying to close or remove the staircase and the new staircase, which was made of steel, was ready to be installed by replacing the existing staircase. He stated that only after the new staircase was fixed, the old staircase would be removed. 13. He also stated that in the year 1992, B.D. Sridhara Rao had applied for a plan to put up additional construction and after getting the plan sanctioned, he had deviated from the sanctioned plan and he had also demolished the overhead tank built on the bathroom of his ground floor premises and he had been utilising the place to grow plants and thus, causing damage to the roof. He stated that his attempts to renovate the property was being impeded by the attitude of his younger brother. 14. He stated that his attempts to renovate the property was being impeded by the attitude of his younger brother. 14. He stated in paragraph 18 of his written statement that the replacement of the staircase was necessary due to certain factors. Firstly, because it was more than 50 years old and secondly, because the staircase was situated inside the property which had been allotted to him and not in the passage of 3 feet x 25 feet which was mentioned in the settlement deed and thirdly, because the existing staircase was adjacent to the room in the ground floor and was obstructing the privacy of its inmates. 15. Thus, the plea in the written statement itself clearly indicated that B.D. Suryanarayana Rao had admitted that the staircase existed in the property and this was the access to the first floor, which was required to be demolished for the reasons stated in the written statement. 16. The Trial Court on consideration of the pleadings framed four issues. 17. B.D. Sridhara Rao examined himself as PW-1 and got twenty-two documents admitted in evidence and marked them as exhibits. 18. B.D. Suryanarayana Rao examined himself as DW-1 and got eight documents admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits. 19. The Trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, recorded a finding that B.D. Sridhara Rao had proved that his elder brother-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao was interfering with his lawful possession. It also found that B.D. Suryanarayana Rao had illegally installed the water tank on the western side of his property abutting to the room on the first floor of the schedule property. 20. The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit and restrained B.D. Suryanarayana Rao from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of his brother’s suit property, including injuncting him from demolishing the disputed staircase. The Trial Court also directed B.D. Suryanarayana Rao to remove the overhead tank installed by him on the western side of B.D. Sridhara Rao’s property abutting the room in the first floor of the suit schedule property, within one month from the date of the judgment and if he did not do so, B.D. Sridhara Rao was at liberty to get the same removed through the process of the Court. 21. Being aggrieved by this decree of injunction, the defendant-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao is in appeal. 22. 21. Being aggrieved by this decree of injunction, the defendant-B.D. Suryanarayana Rao is in appeal. 22. B.D. Suryanarayana Rao, who has appeared in person, contended that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court could not be sustained since it was contrary to the admitted case of all the parties. He submitted that in the settlement deed, it had been clearly stated that he had been allotted a portion measuring 25 feet x 52 feet and the staircase was not situated in the passage of 3 feet x 25 feet, which he had agreed to give up in the settlement deed, but was actually within the property excluding the passage and was therefore, his absolute property. 23. He submitted that since the staircase was a part of his property measuring 25 feet x 49 feet, his younger brother had no right to utilise the staircase and he was entitled to demolish the same. According to him, since he was prepared and had actually made arrangements for erection of another staircase, no prejudice would be caused to B.D. Sridhara Rao and this would actually enable him to enjoy the property that had been allotted to him by his mother. 24. Sri. B.V. Badrinath, learned counsel appearing for B.D. Sridhara Rao, on the other hand, supported the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and contended that there were clear admissions on the part of B.D. Suryanarayana Rao that he was trying to demolish the staircase. He also sought to highlight the fact that it was admitted that there was an existing staircase through which he had access to the first floor and apart from this staircase, he had no other means of access. 25. He submitted that since the settlement deed expressly reserved a right in favour of his vendor-B.D. Sridhara Rao to use the staircase to have access to the first floor, on his purchase from B.D. Sridhara Rao, he had succeeded to the said right and this right could not be defeated by B.D. Suryanarayana Rao. He submitted that in view of the express recital in the settlement deed regarding the use of the staircase, the exact location of the staircase was of no consequence since it had been specifically excluded from the right of B.D. Suryanarayana Rao. He therefore contended that the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit. 26. He submitted that in view of the express recital in the settlement deed regarding the use of the staircase, the exact location of the staircase was of no consequence since it had been specifically excluded from the right of B.D. Suryanarayana Rao. He therefore contended that the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit. 26. In the light of the arguments advanced, the point that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether B.D. Sridhara Rao had established that his elder brother B.D. Suryanarayana Rao was attempting to interfere with the enjoyment of the staircase and was attempting to demolish the same. 27. It is not in dispute that both B.D. Suryanarayana Rao and his younger brother-B.D. Sridhara Rao are claiming title over the property only on the basis of the settlement deed executed by their mother, Smt. B. Kashiamma under which both of them were allotted southern portion of the property bearing No. 52/34. 28. B.D. Suryanarayana Rao was allotted the property measuring 25 feet x 52 feet, while his younger brother-B.D. Sridhara Rao was allotted the abutting property i.e. property measuring 10 feet x 52 feet. 29. It is not in dispute that there existed a first floor portion measuring 25 feet x 40 feet, which had been allotted to their other brother-B.D. Gopal Rao and it is also not in dispute that in order to access the first floor, B.D. Gopal Rao had to necessarily use the staircase which was abutting the property allotted to B.D. Suryanarayana Rao. It is for precisely this reason, his mother reserved a right to B.D. Gopal Rao to have access to the staircase. In other words, in order to go to the first floor, even as on the date of the settlement deed, there was a staircase in existence and access to the first floor was only through this particular staircase. 30. Smt. B. Kashiamma-the mother of the parties, clearly understood this situation and expressly reserved a right in favour of her son, B.D. Gopal Rao, who had been allotted the first floor, to use this staircase. Once the settlement deed reserved the right in favour of B.D. Gopal Rao to use the existing staircase to access the first floor, even assuming that this particular staircase fell within the property allotted to B.D. Suryanarayana Rao, the said staircase cannot be disturbed and would have to be maintained. Once the settlement deed reserved the right in favour of B.D. Gopal Rao to use the existing staircase to access the first floor, even assuming that this particular staircase fell within the property allotted to B.D. Suryanarayana Rao, the said staircase cannot be disturbed and would have to be maintained. Merely because the existence of a staircase amounted to a reduction in the extent of property allotted to B.D. Suryanarayana Rao, that would not entitle him to demolish the staircase on the premise that the staircase was situate within his property. 31. As stated above, both B.D. Suryanarayana Rao and B.D. Sridhar Rao were claiming rights through their mother-Smt. B. Kashiamma and when Kashiamma reserved the right to use the staircase in favour of B.D. Gopal Rao, B.D. Suryanarayana Rao cannot contend that he had a right to either shift or replace the staircase. 32. It is no doubt true that, the brothers could amongst themselves by mutual agreement, change the location of the staircase, but one brother cannot change the staircase merely because it reduced the extent of his holding or that the existence of the staircase caused an impediment in the complete enjoyment of the property allotted in his favour. It would be immaterial whether B.D. Suryanarayana Rao was agreeable to permit his younger brother B.D. Sridhara Rao to enjoy the staircase or not, because it is indisputable that he is bound by the settlement deed that has been executed by his mother-Smt. B. Kashiamma in favour of himself and his younger brother and also the other brothers. 33. The Trial Court has categorically noticed that B.D. Suryanarayana Rao in his cross-examination clearly stated that he wanted to replace the existing staircase by putting an iron staircase and he also wanted to demolish the existing staircase. In fact, this is also the plea put forth by him in his written statement. 34. Having regard to the discussion above, it is clear that the right to use the staircase has been conferred in the settlement deed, to which B.D. Suryanarayana Rao himself was a party and he cannot therefore discard the settlement deed and unilaterally take a decision to replace the staircase. 35. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit and I find no reason to entertain the present appeal and the appeal is therefore dismissed