Bangalore District Court
Brigadier V.S.Madhavan (Retd) vs Sena Vihar Owners Welfare on 28 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH-13)
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
PRESENT
Smt.Nagaveni, B.A.,LL.B.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE
O.S.NO.814/2012
PLAINTIFF: 1. Brigadier V.S.Madhavan (Retd)
S/o late Raman Nair
Aged about 70 years,
2. Mrs.Devaki Madhavan
W/o Brigadier V.S.Madhavan
Aged about 60 years,
Both are r/at House No.1,
Sena Vihar,
Kammanahalli main road,
Bangalore-560 043.
(By Sri.K.N.Purushothaman,
Advocate)
/VS/
DEFENDANT: Sena Vihar Owners Welfare
Association (Regd)
Kammanahalli main road,
Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 043.
(By Sri.B.S., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the 27-01-2012
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on Declaration and Injunction
pronote, : suit for declaration
and possession ,suit for
injunction, etc.)
2 O.S.No.814/2012
Date of Commencement of 06-01-2016
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 28-02-2018
Pronounced
Duration Years Months Days
05 01 01
( NAGAVENI )
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE
*****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the suit for Declaration and mandatory injunction to declare that defendant has no right or power to alter or modify the basic approved plan of the layout placed at Annexure III based on which the promoter AWHO had sold plots to allottees and to issue mandatory injunction against the defendant to remove the illegal walking track/private street constructed in the layout between the plot 1,2,3 and 21,22 and outer compound wall of Sena Vihar Housing Layout and such other reliefs.
3 O.S.No.814/2012
.2. The brief facts of the plaint averments are as under:
The plaintiffs are the owners of the plot No.1 and house constructed thereon at Sena Vihar Housing Complex located on Kammanahalli main road, Kalayanagar post, Bangalore, promoted and developed by Army Welfare Housing Organization, New Delhi and duly approved and sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority. The Army Welfare Housing organization (AWHO) under the aegis of the Army Headquarters Ministry of Defence promotes Housing Colonies wherein apartments/Houses/Plots are constructed for allotment to serving and retired defence personals. The AWHO Housing colony on Kammanahalli main road, Bangalore was sanctioned as private layout by BDA vide resolution No.285 dated 01/12/1989. The Bangalore Development Authority acquired 14 acres 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/2, 25, 34/1, 34/3, 35/1, 35/2, 36/2, 24/2 and 36/1 of 4 O.S.No.814/2012 Kacharakanahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk and bulk allotted the said extent of land to the AWHO for developing the layout subject to approval by Bangalore Development Authority. The AWHO developed the Housing project with 13 apartment blocks constructed therein 364 flats and 71 plots for construction of independent houses by allottees, shopping complex, multipurpose hall, Kinder Garden, Playground roads, Tot lots, compound wall with gates, open areas etc., as per the sanctioned plan of the Bangalore Development Authority. The plaintiffs were allotted with plot No.1 in this project which was meant for construction of houses. The plaintiffs were allotted with the said plot in the preferential category on a premium price. The preferential plot allottees were asked to pay additional amount over the cost payable for other types of ordinary plots. The preferential plot Nos.1,2,3 located at South Eastern corner of the project and plot Nos.21,22 located at North-Eastern corner of the 5 O.S.No.814/2012 plotted are provided with additional area by extending the boundary upto the compound wall. The promoters earmarked the additional area in the preferential plots for promoting greenery and preferential plot owners were permitted to plant fruit yielding tress and garden plants for maintaining greenery in the residential complex. Accordingly the plaintiffs planted and nursed fruit yielding trees and garden plants within the boundaries mentioned in their sale deed since 18 years. The defendant is the Welfare Association constituted by the owners of the apartments and independent houses and registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 to administer and manage the Sena Vihar Complex promoted by the AWHO. The defendant society cannot claim ownership to the common areas or common facilities in the housing complex. The roads, drainages, culverts, tot lots and other common areas initially vested in the Bangalore Development Authority 6 O.S.No.814/2012 and later in the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in terms of the registered deed of relinquishment dated 18/04/1994. The defendant Welfare Association is constituted for the purpose of maintaining all common services such as elevators, generators, water pumping sets, common stairs at the costs of its members as provided under Chapter VIII of AWHO Master Brochure 1987. The management and administration of common facilities in the complex are confined to the facilities enumerated under Annexure XA. However, the defendant does not get the right or authority or title to any part or portion of the Sena Vihar Housing Project to do any act in violation of the basic plan approved and sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority. The owners have selected and purchased their respective plots or apartments with reference to the basic plan approved by Bangalore Development Authority and implemented by AWHO and any member of the defendant Welfare Society or 7 O.S.No.814/2012 its General Body is not empowered to violate or alter the basic approved plan detrimental to the interest or right of an allotted owner in this group housing project. In the defendant association the vast majority is comprised of the flat owners numbering 364 as against the independent house owners numbering 71. Consequentially in the general body meetings or in the committees of the defendant society the representation of the independent house owners are completely ignored. The owners of the independent houses though an oppressed lot till date continued and co- operated with the society in the interest of unity. However, it is noted during recent years that the increasing induction of tenants/new owners are not aware of the special features of this housing scheme, the general bodies and committees of the defendant society has turned to be pro-apartment owners in its functioning by ignoring or neglecting the needs, rights and interest of independent house owners who 8 O.S.No.814/2012 remains a distinct minority in the defendant society. As seen from the plan and photographs the independent houses/plots are located towards the eastern end of the housing complex. In the complex with independent houses, there are tot lots provided for beneficial enjoyment of the owners of the houses nearby for nursing greenery. The tress and plants grown over these tot lots are supplying with rejuvenating atmosphere and protecting ecological balance to the housing complex. Under the influence of Apartment owners, Sena Vihar co-operative Society (Erstwhile managing society) filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka alleging that the planting of trees and greenery on the tot lots as encroachments by the independent house owners. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Thus the apartment owners and the independent house owners during past few years have developed hostile interests with regard to maintenance of the roads, tot 9 O.S.No.814/2012 roads and the adjoining or abutting lands in the independent plots at the eastern end of the Sena Vihar Complex. In the month of October, 2011 at the defendant proposed to construct a jogging track of 7 feet width over the suit schedule property connecting the 40 feet road and 20 feet road without the consent of the plaintiff. The proposed jogging track passes through the schedule property earmarked for maintaining greenery, will cause a serious threat to the privacy and security of the plaintiffs and other owners of plot Nos.2 and 3 as most of them are senior citizens. The plaintiffs are in peaceful enjoyment of their schedule property and have planted fruit yielding trees and garden plants for the past 18 years. Further contends that the defendant society with the overwhelming majority of the apartment owners had resolved in 2008 Annual General Body Meeting to construct a jogging track which passes through the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs and other 10 O.S.No.814/2012 independent house owners numbering about 15 on the eastern part of the layout protested the move and made representation to the defendant in writing on 10/10/2011 and further on 17/10/2011. The defendant by its letter dated 28/11/2011 rejected the said representations of the plaintiffs and other affected owners of the independent houses. On 08/12/2011 at about 10.30am about 25 members of the defendant society who are mainly apartment owners entered a portion of suit schedule property and began chopping the trees and plants and indulged in vandalism by using criminal force and marked the jogging track for construction. The plaintiff was out of station and the security guard of the plaintiff when interfered was abused and threatened by the members of the defendants. The owner of house No.2 Lt.Col.N.A.Mudappa when intervened was also met with the same threatening words and rude behaviour from the defendant's members who were obviously 11 O.S.No.814/2012 acting under the instigation and support of the defendant. Lt.Col.N.A.Mudappa lodged a complaint with the police and Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike officials on the illegal and forceful activities instigated by the defendant and carried out by a few apartment owners in Sena Vihar complex. The entire layout called Sena Vihar Complex is within the jurisdiction of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. No one can make any construction within this layout which was promoted and laid as per a basic plan sanctioned and approved by the planning authority Bangalore Development Authority. The defendants threats and illegal attempt through its members who are apartment owners to construct the jogging track in the layout over the suit schedule property is not only unlawful but also impermissible without the consent of all the individual plot owners. Any interference in these valuable legal rights of the plaintiffs and other preferential plot owners by the defendant or its 12 O.S.No.814/2012 members in terms of any resolution or otherwise is amounting to gross violation of the valuable proprietary rights of the plaintiffs and other preferential site owners in the layout and it is not permissible in law or in equity. Most of the owners of the independent houses are retired personals from defence service and senior citizens and due to their age factor and also for the reason that many of the house owners are aged couple living in those houses, they need security and privacy for their houses to live in the fag end of their lives. That is the reason for selecting and purchasing independent preferential plots for construction of their houses according to their wishes and needs. Any attempt to invade on the privacy and security of those independent houses in this housing complex promoted by AWHO with this clear and laudable purpose, it totally impermissible. The plaintiffs have made representation to the police and the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, but the 13 O.S.No.814/2012 dispute is not resolved and threat of the defendant continues and at any time the defendant's members who are living in the apartments may repeat the vandalism and use of criminal force against the helpless, aged senior citizens living in these independent houses. The defendant without obtaining permission from the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike illegally and forcefully constructed the walking track between the plot Nos.1,2,3,21 and 22 and the outer compound wall after filing of this suit and celebrated the opening of the walking track on 2nd December, 2012. Thereafter, the walking track/private street is being used by the members of the defendant association causing a lot of disturbance and inconvenience to the plaintiffs and other neighbouring house owners threatening their peaceful living in their house abutting the walking track. The cause of action for the suit arose on 10/10/2011 and 17/10/2011 when the plaintiff and other independent house 14 O.S.No.814/2012 owners made representations to the defendant society, on 28/11/2011 when the defendant rejected the objections raised by the independent house owners by its President's letter dated 28/11/2011 and 08/12/2011 when the defendant's members indulged in vandalism and cut and destroyed the trees and plants in scheduled area and further on 02/12/2012 when the defendant illegally and forcefully constructed the walking track/private street and organized a function to declare it open to the members of the defendant association. Hence, the suit.
3. Inspite of service of summons, defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement as under:
The entire averments denied as false except the admitted facts. It is stated that that averments made in para 2 and 3 of plaint averments are admitted as true and correct. The Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO), New Delhi formed and registered 15 O.S.No.814/2012 as society under Societies Registration Act, XXI of 1860 before the Registrar of Societies, New Delhi under the aegis of Army Head Quarters, Ministry of Defence, whose aims and objectives is to procure, develop and provide dwelling units/flats/plots etc., to serving and retired personnel of arum and other defense sectors who are its member registrants. In pursuance of its aims and objectives, AWHO have framed Army Welfare Housing Organization Rules, 1987 of AWHO. In furtherance of their objectives, the AWHO approached Bangalore Development Authority for allotment of land in Bangalore city for construction of flats/houses for its member registrants. Upon request of AWHO, Bangalore Development Authority have allotted lands in Sy.Nos.24/2, 25, 34/1, 34/3, 35/1, 35/2, 35/3, 36/1 and 36/2 situated at Kacharakanahalli village measuring an extent of 14 acres 22 guntas in favour of AWHO by executing an agreement on 29/08/1985 and possession certificate in regard to the above lands was 16 O.S.No.814/2012 issued by Bangalore Development Authority on 20/03/1986 on lease cum sale agreement for a period of thirty years. Further, upon receipt of entire cost of land and layout charges and after fulfilling all formalities in regard to formation of layout in the above Bangalore Development Authority allotted lands with approval and consent of Bangalore Development Authority, an absolute sale deed dated 18/11/1992 bearing document No.5546/1992-93 of Book-I, came to be registered by Bangalore Development Authority in favour of AWHO. Thus AWHO became the absolute owner lawfully seized and possessed of the above lands by forming plots for the construction of residential buildings and further constructed apartment blocks consisting of various types of flats for its member registrants. Further, AWHO by its letter titled as Draw for Allotment of Plots at Bangalore which came to be issued to its member registrants, it is made clear that there would be differential for corner plots and plots 17 O.S.No.814/2012 having advantageous locations at para 3(f). Further, AWHO by its letter titled as Handing Over of Plots:Banaswadi-Bangalore which came to be issued to its member registrants, it is made clear in para 19 of this letter that those member registrants allotted with plots in particular project/colony will have to become member of its registered co-operative society in accordance with bye-laws approved by AWHO. Subsequently AWHO has issued intimation letter calling upon its member registrants to submit an undertaking by way of final affidavit as per the format provided by them and one such letter dated 24/01/1990 enclosing the final affidavit format sent to Brigadier KSR Naidu. In pursuance of the aforementioned turn of events the plaintiffs being amongst the member registrants of AWHO have been allotted a preferential plot bearing plot No.1 measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 45 feet only which is referred as schedule B property which is duly 18 O.S.No.814/2012 carved in the Bangalore Development Authority approved layout formed in the aforementioned lands which is referred as schedule A property which facts are affirmed from the plaintiffs' sale deed dated 30/04/1996. The preferential plots are mainly the corner plots and plots having advantageious locations and these plaintiffs had purchased aforementioned corner plot having advantageous position of having open space on its three sides. Hence the allegation of plaintiffs in para 4 that the preferential plot Nos.1,2,3 and plot Nos.21,22 are provided with additional area by extending the boundary upto the compound wall and that the promoters earmarked the additional area in the preferential plots for promoting greenery and preferential plot owners were permitted to plant fruit yielding trees and garden plants for maintaining greenery in the residential complex are absolute false, baseless, frivolous and concocted. Nowhere in the sale deed supra, recitals to that effect are made by AWHO 19 O.S.No.814/2012 in favour of these plaintiffs thereby conferring right, title, interest and possession in respect of the common area measuring 2000 sq.ft. situated in between the plaintiffs' plot No.1 and the boundary wall on the southern boundary which is affirmed by the Bangalore Development Authority approved plan which is part and parcel of the schedule A property. The property tax receipt as per Annexure-IB produced by the plaintiffs would affirm that property tax paid by them is for only the actual measurement of their property in plot No.1 and not inclusive of the suit schedule property. That apart in the sale deed, the plaintiffs amongst many terms, conditions, recitals and covenants have covenanted to become members of the Sena Vihar Housing Co-operative Society, Bangalore and as per terms and covenants in schedule C of the sale deed and more particularly plaintiffs agreed to have free and uninterrupted right of passage and liberty with all other persons entitled, permitted or authorized to do 20 O.S.No.814/2012 similar right at all times and for all purposes to use common areas and the lands in and around A schedule property as per clause (1) to have right and liberty in common with all other owners in A schedule property at all times and for all purposes to go and repass over the schedule A property to reach their respective plots or building to be constructed for his residential purposes as per clause (5) not to place any restriction in areas provided for reaching the schedule A property as per clause 6(a) to pay expenses as determined by the Managing Committee of the society from time to time in respect of the safety, protection, operation and maintenance of schedule A property as per clauses 6(d) and (g) not to encroach upon any portion of schedule A property as per clause 6(m) respectively. The photographs produced by the plaintiffs as per Annexures V to VII would clearly affirm the encroachment of portion of the schedule A property made by the plaintiffs by blocking the 18" 21 O.S.No.814/2012 road in between plot No.39 and the northern side of plot No.1 including the existing borewell and converting the same into a private garden. Further, it is affirmed by the Handing/Taking over certificate for plots executed by the first plaintiff on 30/04/1990 produced by them as per Annexure-A1. The first plaintiff himself is the chief promoter of the Sena Vihar Housing Co-operative Society, the predecessor of the defendant which came into existence on 20/05/1994 and was further appointed its Vice President. In the Byelaw No.2(o) of Chapter 1 it is categorically affirmed that all the common areas and facilities jointly owned by all the 435 owners and shall be managed, administered and maintained by the society on behalf of all the owners and as per Bye-law No.14 of Chapter 8, it is affirmed that no encroachment is permitted on common areas and all encroachment shall be evicted at the risk and expenses of the offender without any notice etc. It is true that a Relinquishment Deed dated 22 O.S.No.814/2012 18/04/1994 came to be executed by AWHO in favour of Bangalore Development Authority by relinquishing the internal road, culverts and drains parallel to the road mentioned at clause A of schedul3, 11 Totlots mentioned in cause B of the schedule and children park between building blocks C and F as mentioned in clause C of the schedule the relinquishment deed for their development and maintenance. However, remaining land situated in Sena vihar complex i.e., schedule property of sale deed made in favour of AWHO is still jointly owned by all members of the society. This aspect was further affirmed by AWHO in its letter dated 24 /06/1998 and confirmed that ownership of all the common facilities already vests with all the allottees (flat owners and plot owners) jointly and hence this ownership cannot be transferred to the society. Further, in letter dated 09/09/1998, AWHO has clearly affirmed that the exclusive right of 23 O.S.No.814/2012 the each plot owner is restricted to the area of the each plot allotted to him.
Further contends that Sena Vihar Housing Co- operative Society was converted into defendant association and the Rules and Regulations (Bye-Laws) came to be framed by the members/owners of the House/Plot and Apartments in conjunction with the AWHO Rules as per Master Brochure, 1987. In the Bye-law No.1(n) of chapter 2, all the common areas and facilities situated in entire Sena Vihar Complex are the joint properties managed, administered and maintained by the defendant association and as per Bye-law No.34 of chapter 8, it is affirmed that no encroachments is permitted on common areas and all encroachment shall be evicted at the risk and expenses of the offender without any notice etc. Hence, the area behind plaintiffs' plot No.1 being a common area and they do not have or cannot claim to have exclusive right over the use of such common area and it is only 24 O.S.No.814/2012 the defendant association on behalf of all members, having right to maintain such areas for the common good of all residents which have been empowered under the Master Brochure, 1987. The certificate of handing over common facilities issued by AWHO vide Annexure XA is in addition to the rights, powers and responsibilities vested in the defendant under Master Brochure, 1987 and not restricted to the maintenance of the aforementioned services only as alleged by plaintiffs. It is admitted that defendant's Association comprises of 364 flat owners and 71 independent House Owners. The plot owners are proportionately represented on the management committee of defendant and 2 members out of 9 members are mandated out of which one is an incumbent vice president. The apartment owners are not disturbing the peace of house owners in any way and the colony is treated in letter and spirit as one whole single complex and no hostile interests have developed 25 O.S.No.814/2012 between owners of apartments and houses as claimed by the plaintiffs. It is true that erstwhile society filed Writ Petition No.28624/2003 in Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking direction to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to remove all encroachments on the public streets and common areas of the society which came to be treated as a public interest litigation and dismissed the above Writ Petition by observing that the same involved questions of facts which cannot be looked into in a PIL and further made an observation that the respondent authorities will take action if there was any encroachment as made out in the Writ Petition. The AWHO has issued authority letter to it by authorizing further action to ensure removal of the encroachments made by the owners of plots and dwelling units and the defendant is in the process of initiating appropriate legal action in this regard at the earliest. The defendant neither intended nor constructed a permanent jogging/walking track in 26 O.S.No.814/2012 the suit schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs and further as free uninterrupted and unrestricted access into the common areas and more particularly the common areas behind plot Nos.1,2 and 3 including the suit schedule property upto the southern boundary wall is imperative for the residents of the colony, defendant association and its maintenance staff and the personnel of the civil services such as BESCOM, BWSSB and Fire Tenders, Fire Fighting Personnel as these common areas are vital and indispensable for carrying on maintenance of the main electrical feeder line running into the Housing Colony which is laid parallel to the southern boundary wall behind plot Nos.1 to 3 and due to haphazard planting of Mango and Coconut tress which interfere with maintenance of the feeder lines and many a times the maintenance personnel of the defendant in addition to BESCOM staff had to trim the trees which would otherwise touch and interfere with the cable and thereby become 27 O.S.No.814/2012 cause for electricity shutdown for the entire colony. Further, an 8" BWSSB pipeline which is the mainstay of water supply to the Housing Colony also runs through this area which also requires regular supervision, maintenance by BWSSB Staff as well as defendant's maintenance personnel. Hence, the aforesaid common areas behind plot Nos.1 to 3 including the suit schedule property are being used as a link road/passage by the defendant's maintenance staff who are further required to maintain the rain water harvesting pits made in the drains which runs parallel to the 40 feet road and also 20 feet road and for movement of the waste to the garbage dump situated in the south eastern boundary. That apart this area is vital for purposes of security patrolling along the boundary walls and also for providing free and easy access to the Fire Tenders and Fire fighting personnel in an emergency and as majority of the residents of the Housing colony being senior citizens 28 O.S.No.814/2012 need more safe walking space which is not available outside as well as inside the Housing Colony in view of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike making the internal roads as public roads and they have been using this common areas in which the suit schedule property is portion thereof as a walking trail ever since the Housing complex came into existence. On many occasions earlier, the plaintiffs have been very non co- operative, harsh, nursed ill will for no good and cogent reasons upon the defendant's office bearers and maintenance staff by obstructing even their bonafide acts of trimming the leaves, twigs of the trees nearer to the electricity feeder line which cause obstruction during emergencies so as to avoid any consequential electricity shut down to the entire colony and further the first plaintiff resorted to even lodge false and frivolous complaints against defendant's office bearers and others. One such complaint is submitted by plaintiff No.1 to the defendant and the same is marked 29 O.S.No.814/2012 to the jurisdictional police and other authorities on 03/07/2010. All the members of the defendant including the house/plot owners and these plaintiffs and not only the apartment owners took part in the said meeting and they have been collectively parties to the resolutions passed thereof. However, it was agreed in principle that a 200 feet long passage from the south western corner to the children's park south of apartment L Block will ensure a proper passage all along the periphery without obstruction to any members without causing any damage to the existing greenery. As the plaintiffs were never aggrieved about the resolutions of meeting supra and having not chosen to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, they cannot nurse a grouse about the same after long lapse of time at this juncture. The plaintiffs and other independent owners had submitted representations to the defendant on 10/10/2011 and 17/10/2011 are admitted and upon considering the 30 O.S.No.814/2012 merits of their alleged grievances, the same came to be rejected by the defendant's letter on 28/11/2011 keeping in mind the larger interest of the entire housing colony and by ignoring the selfish interest of a few plot owners including plaintiffs. On 08/12/2011 the members of defendant alongwith their maintenance staff including gardeners were removing the weeds and stones present in the walking path passing through the common areas behind plot Nos.1 to 3 including the suit schedule property and at that time, the owners and family embers of some of the independent plots including these plaintiffs who nursed ill will and disharmony towards the defendant and the majority of its members as they had thwarted their illegal and unlawful attempts to encroach upon the common areas behind their plots and being not able to successfully implement their malafide desire, they resorted to lodge false, baseless and frivolous complaints before the police which do not befit or 31 O.S.No.814/2012 uphold the dignity and impeccable characters, military personnel are known for. No vandalism and criminal force was used by the defendant or its members or staff against plaintiff or other plot owners. After learning about the true facts, the jurisdictional police have refrained from registering any cases and on the contrary advised the plaintiffs and other frivolous plot owners to live in harmony with the other residents of the colony. Merely on the pretext that the plot No.1 supra faced certain landmarks namely the plot No.30 on the northern side and boundary wall facing towards the southern side, it does not mean and infer that the 18 feet road and adjacent borewell No.3 and common areas lying in between the plot No.1 and the aforementioned landmarks are allegedly sold to the plaintiffs under their sale deed and it is only an act of greediness coupled with malafide intention on the part of the plaintiffs who nurse a plan to make encroachments upon the said areas and they are 32 O.S.No.814/2012 making deliberate attempt to claim the same as if they are the owners even without there being an a title documents to that effect. The suit schedule property is both used as a passage/link road by the defendant and its staff for maintenance of several amenities mentioned supra and as a walking trail by the residents of the colony who are mainly senior citizens and ex-military personnel. The photos produced by the plaintiff themselves have made encroachments on the northern and western side of their plot No.1 by making a private garden and even put up a swing upon the 18 feet road and they have erected a metal stair case to first floor beyond their plot's outer wall on the western side. The sites in the colony were allotted by the draw of lots in the year 1990 and few were considered as 'preferential plots' because they are corner plots with an extra open side and the extra cost of such preferential sites is only because of this benefit of location and not to bestow any special rights over 33 O.S.No.814/2012 areas outside their plots. The size of the plot allotted to plaintiffs is 40 feet x 45 feet only and the same sized plots are allotted to all plot owners whether it is preferential or not. Further contends that not only the owners of the independent houses, most of its members whether it is house/plot owners or apartment owners are also retired military personnels residing with their spouses and other family members and they are also senior citizens in the evening of their life and their right to use the common areas including the walking trail/passage through suit schedule property for their daily walk cannot be deprived by the plaintiffs or any other frivolous plot owners and at no point of time, there was any invasion of privacy or frivolous plot owners and at no point of time, there was any invasion of privacy or security of the independent houses is done by either defendant's members living in apartments may repeat vandalism and criminal force against the independent house owners etc., is only a 34 O.S.No.814/2012 figment of imagination of the plaintiffs based on surmises and conjectures and plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same.
4. In the additional written statement, the entire averments denied as false except the admitted facts.
further, it is stated that defendant had only marked a walking path measuring a mere 4 feet in width in the common area behind house Nos.1,2,3,21 and 22 in which the suit schedule property is portion thereof and covered the surface with a thin layer of line to facilitate easy recognition of pathway by the residents to prevent them from straying outside damaging the plants and fall into ditches and potholes besides the trail. The above walking track does not alter the nature of surface posing impediments to anybody including the plaintiffs. Further, the marking of a walking path in the manner referred above does not constitute 'construction of a private street' by no stretch of imagination, as the term 'private street' connotes an 35 O.S.No.814/2012 entirely different meaning, complexion and configuration as defined in Section 2(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 which means any street, road, square, court, alley, passage or riding path, which is not a 'public street' but does not include a pathway made by the owner of premises on his own land to secure access to or the convenient use of such premises. The use of the walking path made by the members of the defendant's association is causing a lot of disturbance and inconvenience to them and other neighbouring houses threatening their peaceful living, is denied as absolutely baseless and vexatious. It is once again reiterated that there are 435 dwelling units inside the defendant's colony consisting of 13 multi storey apartment blocks and 71 independent houses/plots. The internal roads inside the colony run through these dwelling units abutting very close to these units and houses. Further, it is a matter of fact, that the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike had 36 O.S.No.814/2012 declared these internal roads as public and ordered that the general public including both pedestrian and vehicular traffic should be permitted free access and use of these internal road round the clock, be it by day or night. If the other habitants of dwelling units located near these internal roads can accept and bear with the free movement of general public including heavy vehicular traffic, mere walking on a kuchha walking path by members of the Housing colony whose number is very limited would not cause any extra hardship to the plaintiffs who cannot claim any special and privileged treatment in this regard. If the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike can order the internal road as public roads as these are relinquished to their predecessor i.e., Bangalore Development Authority earlier and assuming for a moment without admitting that the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike can equally order the common areas under
control of defendant, for free use by the general public 37 O.S.No.814/2012 should the plea of plaintiffs be accepted that the schedule property is under the alleged control of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. There is absolutely no change of land use as alleged. Even presuming but not admitting that a walking track has been constructed, the said area still remains an open area and hence implies no change of land use. The clauses 3 and 4 of the Relinquishment Deed 18/04/194 are general in nature and are to be read in conjunction with pages No.4 and 5 of the said relinquishment deal which are more specific in nature amplifying the contents of clauses 3 and 4. According to page Nos.4 and 5 of Relinquishment Deed only the internal road, drains and culverts running parallel to these, 11 tot lots and children park area between F and G blocks have been relinquished for maintenance and development only and no further. As such, all other areas are commonly owned by all the owner members of Sena Vihar Colony and do not either 38 O.S.No.814/2012 belong to Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike or come under the administrative control of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. All common areas come under the control of defendant association which is further affirmed by the authority letter dated 24/09/2013 given by the Managing Director of AWHO i.e., the khatha holder of the entire land. In terms of zoning of land use and regulations of the Bangalore Development Authority, the defendant's colony i.e., Sena Vihar come under the category of Group Housing plan which means more than two buildings on a plot with one or more floors and with one or more dwelling units in each floors. They are connected by an access of not less than 3.5 mtrs, in width, if they are not approachable directly from the existing roads. As per the norms for approval of group housing plan, 25% of the total area was required to be reserved for CA, parks and open spaces, subject to a minimum of 15% for parks and open spaces, and the area reserved for 39 O.S.No.814/2012 parks and open spaces, CA and roads (other than internal access in each sub-divided plot) was to be handedover free of cost to the Bangalore Development Authority through registered relinquishment deed before issue of work order. In terms of the said norms, the promoter AWHO was required to relinquish only 25% of its total area of 58,882 sq.mts of Sena Vihar Group Housing Project and as such 25% of the total area so relinquished by the promoter AWHO as per Relinquishment Deed dated 18/04/1994 is approx 14,700 sq.meters. The areas under issue behind houses Nos.1 to 3 in which the suit schedule property is portion thereof and on the northern side of house Nos.21 and 22 are not part of the areas so relinquished and hence do not come under the control of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. As such no permission of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is required to mark and lay a kuchha walking path in these areas for the benefit of all the residents. No 40 O.S.No.814/2012 encroachment of any nature has been made by doing so. In terms of the group housing norms stated above, a minimum of 15% of the total area of the layout is to be reserved for parks and open spaces and only these 15% areas of open spaces and parks are required to be relinquished. When read in this context, all the open areas in the layout over and above 15% need not be relinquished and hence all the 100% open areas are neither vested nor controlled by the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. All along the compound wall of Sena Vihar Housing Colony, a minimum distance of 26 feet 3 inches has been provided for from the compound wall to the nearest block/building as per the approved layout plan to meet the requirements of the Fire Force authorities. This fact can be ascertained from the AWHO letter dated 30/05/1990 addressed to the Bangalore Development Authority. The are under issue behind House Nos.1,2,3 in which the suit schedule property is portion thereof, is part of the set back area 41 O.S.No.814/2012 so provided for consisting of underground water supply lines to the Sena Vihar Housing colony, the water meters which the defendant's personnel are required to ensure security and constantly monitor, the main feeder electrical line to the colony, passage for security people for perimeter security patrolling and as well meant for movement of fire tenders. The infrastructure so created in their area is for the benefit, maintenance and use by the residents for their sustenance and security. The defendant's maintenance and security personnel daily traverse through the suit schedule property for the assigned purposes. Rightly the control of this area vests with the defendant and not with the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike otherwise they would restrict or prohibit movement of the defendant's essential services personnel based on their whims and fancies. The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike can neither restrict the defendant's maintenance personnel 42 O.S.No.814/2012 traversing this common area nor can prohibit the residents' walking through this common area which has been paid for by them, particularly so when the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike had permitted the general public living outside Sena Vihar Housing colony to freely use all the internal roads and areas of Sena Vihar without even being questioned all through the day and night even at the cost of endangering the safety and security of its residents, majority of whom are senior citizens and defence pensioners. Even after filing of the above suit, the plaintiffs have been interfering with the lawful discharge of duties by the defendant in terms of harassing and threatening the workers of the defendant working in the common areas belonging to the defendant association behind the plaintiffs' house. Due to frequent interruptions of 11 KV (HT) power line running along the eastern and southern boundary walls of Sena Vihar colony, the AEE, BESCOM wanted to cut and trim a few branches 43 O.S.No.814/2012 of tall trees touching the power line. Due to the urgency of the work, he wanted the defendant to provide their men to assist the BESCOM work force as well by a few additional wokers to be hired from outside. The entire team of workers placed under BESCOM for execution of the task under the supervision of the BESCOM. Accordingly, while the work was under progress on 01/08/2013, one Satyavel, an outside worker hired by the defendant and placed under BESCOM. Some of the trees involved in cutting of the branches are those located behind the plaintiff's house on the southern side towards the southern boundary wall. This area behind plaintiff's house on the southern side is a common area under the control of the defendant for maintenance and development for the common use of all residents of Sena Vihar. The 1st plaintiff had summoned one of the workers Satyavel and threatened him of dire consequences for trimming the trees 44 O.S.No.814/2012 behind his house which is a common area and this incident is a blatant interference by the plaintiffs in the lawful functioning of the defendant. The plaintiffs who have illegally encroached into the common area by constructing a staircase outside the boundary of their house plot area on the western side and also installed on iron Jhoola (Swing) and enclosing the area outside their house on the northern side by encompassing the road measuring 18 feet in width which are blatant encroachments. The size of the plot owned by the plaintiffs is limited to 45 ft x 40 feet on which they had constructed house with no set backs on the eastern and southern sides. Hence, prayed that dismiss the suit with costs.
5. In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and closed his side. Col (Dr.) V.Mukesh Kumar (Retd) examined himself as D.W-1 and got marked documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.14 and closed his side. 45 O.S.No.814/2012
6. Heard arguments on both the sides. Written arguments filed.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed ;
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant has no right or power to alter or modify the basic approved plan of the layout placed at annexure-III based on which the promoter AWHO had sold plots to allottees ?
2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed ?
3) Whether defendant proves that suit is highly misconceived and not maintainable in law as alleged in written statement ?
4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for ?
5) What order or decree?
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1: In the Negative Issue No. 2: In the Negative Issue No. 3: In the Affirmative Issue No. 4: In the Negative Issue No. 5 : As per final order 46 O.S.No.814/2012 for the following:
REASONS .9. Issue Nos.1 to 3 : These issues are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
P.W-1, Brigadier V.S Madhavan (Retd) in his affidavit evidence has reiterated the plaint averments. To support his affidavit evidence, he has produced Ex.P.1, sale deed dated 30/04/1996, Ex.P.2 is the Rectification Deed dated 25/08/2001, Ex.P.3 is the handing over letter dated 19/02/1990, Ex.P.4 is the taking over certificate, Ex.P.4(a) is the sketch, Ex.P.5 is the registration of dwelling units, Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16/06/2000, Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 30/04/1996, Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of the relinquishment deed dated 18/04/1994, Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the orders in Writ Petition No.28624/2003, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 are office copy of two representations dated 47 O.S.No.814/2012 28/11/2011, Ex.P.12 is the reply and Ex.P.13 is the copy of the complaint to Banaswadi police station.
10. According to plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are the owners of the plot No.1 and house constructed thereon at Sena Vihar Housing Complex located at Kammanahalli main road, Kalayananagar post, Bangalore, promoted and developed by Army Welfare Housing Organization, New Delhi and duly approved and sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority. The AWHO under the aegies of the Army headquarters, Ministry of Defence promotes Housing Colonies wherein apartments/Houses/Plots are constructed for allotment to serving and retired defence personals. The AWHO was sanctioned as a private layout by Bangalore Development Authority vide resolution No.285 dated 01/12/1989. The Bangalore Development Authority acquired 14 acre 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/2, 25,34/1, 34/3, 35/1, 35/2, 36/2, 24/2 and 36/1 of Kacharakanahalli 48 O.S.No.814/2012 village, Bangalore North Taluk and bulk allotted the said extent of land to the AWHO for developing the layout subject to the approval by Bangalore Development Authority. The AWHO developed the housing project with 13 apartment blocks constructed therein 364 flats and 71 plots for construction of independent houses by allottees, shopping complex, multipurpose hall, kinder garden, playground, roads, Tot lots, compound wall with gates, open areas etc., as per the sanctioned plan of the Bangalore Development Authority. The preferential plot allottees were asked to pay additional amount over the cost payable for other types of ordinary plots. The preferential plot Nos.1,2,3 located at south-eastern corner of the project and plot Nos.21,22 located at North-Eastern corner of the plotted area are provided with additional area by extending the boundary upto the compound wall. The plaintiffs have planted and nursed fruit yielding trees and garden plants within the boundaries mentioned in 49 O.S.No.814/2012 the sale deed since 18 years. The defendant is the welfare association constituted by the owners of the apartments and independent houses and registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 to administer and manage the Sena Vihar Complex promoted by the AWHO. The defendant society cannot claim ownership to the common areas or common facilities in the housing complex. The roads, drainages, culverts, tot lots and other common areas initially vested in the Bangalore Development Authority and later in the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in terms of the registered deed of relinquishment dated 18/04/1994. The defendant Welfare Association is constituted for the purpose of maintaining all common services such as elevators, generators, water pumping sets, common stairs at the cost of its members as provided under chapter VIII of the AWHO Master Brochure 1987. The defendants or its General Body is not empowered to violate or alter the basic approved 50 O.S.No.814/2012 plan detrimental to the interest or right of an allotted owner in this group housing project. The owners of independent houses though an oppressed lot till date continued and co-operated with the society in the interest of unity. A group of apartment owners are regularly indulging in activities disturbing the peaceful living of the independent house owners in the housing complex. In the complex with independent houses, there are tot-lots provided for beneficial enjoyment of the owners of the houses nearby for nursing greenery.
The trees and plants grown over these tot-lots are supplying with rejuvenating atmosphere and protecting ecological balance to the housing complex. Thus the apartment owners and the independent house owners during the past few years have developed hostile interests with regard to the maintenance of the roads, tot lots and the adjoining or abutting lands in the independent plots at the eastern end of the Sena Vihar Complex. In the month of 51 O.S.No.814/2012 October, 2011 the defendant proposed to construct a jogging track of 7 feet width over the suit schedule property connecting the 40 feet road and 20 feet road without the consent of the plaintiff. The proposed jogging track passes through the schedule property earmarked for maintaining greenery, which will cause a serious threat to the privacy and security of plaintiff's property and other owners of plot Nos.2 and 3 as most of them are senior citizens. The plaintiffs and other independent house owners numbering about 15 on the eastern part of the layout protested the move and made representation to the defendant in writing on 10/10/2011 and further on 17/10/2011. But the defendants have rejected the letter. The entire layout called Sena Vihar Complex is within the jurisdiction of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. No one can make any construction within this layout which was promoted and laid as per a basic plan sanctioned and approved by the planning authority Bangalore 52 O.S.No.814/2012 Development Authority. The defendants threats and illegal attempt through its members who are apartment owners to construct the jogging track in the layout over the suit schedule property is not only unlawful but also impermissible without the consent of all the individual plot owners. The defendant without obtaining permission from the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike illegally made the walking track between the plot Nos.1,2,3 and 21 and 22 and the outer compound wall of the Senavihar Housing complex connecting the 40 feet wide layout road and 20 feet layout road on eastern side without obtaining sanction plan. Section 32(5) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act provides that culverts the roads, culverts open drainages and water mains, parks and open spaces in the layout shall be released to the Bangalore Development Authority free of cost. The Sub-section (7) of the Act further provides that once the layout is completed no alteration or addition in the 53 O.S.No.814/2012 layout by forming new extension or private street is permissible without prior permission of sanction of the competent authority. The promoter AWHO utilized about 50% of the allotted land measuring 14 acres 22 guntas for construction of the 13 apartment blocks consists of 364 apartments/dwelling units and other half of the allotted area was used for constructing a layout with 71 residential plots, layout roads, 11 totlots, open spaces, children park, kinder garden school, bank building and a multipurpose hall as per the original plan, modified plan and revised plan. The plaintiffs were allotted with plot No.1 in the layout by the promoter AWHO by issuing the Handing/Taking over certificate dated 30/04/1990. The layout sketch that abutting plot Nos.1,2 and 3 on the southern side of the plots there is an open space measuring about 2000 sq.ft. at the south-eastern corner of the layout. In the general body and committee meetings the views and grievances of the independent house owners who 54 O.S.No.814/2012 are in minority were often ignored or shouted down by the majority apartment owners. The apartment owners often acted detrimental to the interest of the independent house owners in the administration of this Housing complex. The abutting independent house owners including the plaintiffs protested against the resolution as the construction of walking track or the private street over the open space behind houses 1,2 and 3 and the outer compound wall would threaten the security of those houses. The defendant association had no right or power to construct the proposed walking track or private street without prior sanction from the competent authority. The open space in the south end, north end and eastern side of the plot cannot be claimed by the defendant association or by the owners as owned by the owners. The said open space are already vest in the local authority under law. The defendant association is only a welfare charitable association for managing the common facilities created 55 O.S.No.814/2012 in the layout by the promoter for the owner's benefits and commonly owned by the allotteees. The promoter has collected and received Rs.5,000/- from the preferential plot owners for the location of their plots abutting the open spaces in the layout. The plots are uniformly measuring 45' X 40' and area 1800 sq.ft. The plaintiffs plot No.1 and plot Nos.2 and 3 are also measuring 45'x40'. The boundary descriptions in plot No.1 and 2 sale deeds, the abutting open spaces are included within the boundaries of these plots and the site absolutely sold to the allottees are clearly demarcated in sale deed schedule as 45'x40'. The plaintiffs and other owners of the plot Nos.2 and 3 have got right to beneficial enjoyment of this open space as the abutting preferential plot owners.
11. Per contra, it is the specific case of the defendant that defendant is welfare association constituted by the owners of the association of independent houses registered under the Karnataka 56 O.S.No.814/2012 Societies act, 1860. The relinquishment deed dated 18/04/1994 came to be executed by AWHO in favour of Bangalore Development Authority by relinquishing the internal roads, culverts and drains parallel to the road mentioned in detail in clause A of the schedule, 11 totlots mentioned in B of the schedule and children park between building blocs C and F as mentioned in clause C of the schedule of the relinquishment deed for their development and maintenance. The remaining land situated in Sena Vihar Complex i.e., schedule property of sale deed made in favour of AWHO is still jointly owned by all members of the society. The exclusive right of each plot owner is restricted to the area of the each plot allotted to him. The Sena Vihar Housing Co-operative society was converted into defendant association and the rules and regulations came to be framed by the members of the plot and apartments with the AWHO rules as per Master Brochure, 1987. The area behind plaintiffs' plot Nos.1 57 O.S.No.814/2012 being a common area and they do not have or cannot claim to have exclusive right over the use of such common area and it is only the defendant association on behalf of all members having right to maintain such areas for the common good of all the residents which have been empowered under the Master Brochure, 1987, the Bye-Laws and AWHO letters. The defendant association comprises of 364 flat owners and 71 independent house owners. The plot owners are proportionately represented on the management committee of defendant and 2 members out of 9 members are mandated out of which one is an incumbent vice president. The apartment owners are not disturbing the peace of house owners in any way and the Housing colony is treated in letter and spirit as one whole single complex and no hostile interests have developed between owners of the apartments and houses as claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant neither intended nor constructed a permanent 58 O.S.No.814/2012 jogging/walking track in the suit schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs and further as free uninterrupted and unrestricted access into the common areas and more particularly the common areas behind plot Nos.1,2 and 3 including the suit schedule property upto the southern boundary wall is imperative for the residents of the colony, defendant association and its maintenance staff and the personnel of civil services such as BESVOM, BWSSB and Fire Tenders, Fire Fighting personnel as these common areas are vital and indispensable for carrying on maintenance of the main electrical feeder line running into the Housing colony which is laid parallel to the southern boundary wall behind plot Nos.1 to 3 and due haphazard plating of Mango and coconut trees which interfere with maintenance of the feeder lines and many a times the maintenance personnel of the defendant in addition to the BESCOM staff had to trim the trees which would otherwise touch and interfere 59 O.S.No.814/2012 with the cable and thereby come cause for electricity shutdown for the entire colony. Further, an 8" BWSSB pipeline which is the mainstay of water supply to the Housing colony also runs through this area which also requires regular supervision, maintenance by BWSSB staff as well as defendant maintenance personnel. The common areas behind plot Nos.1 to 3 including the suit schedule property are being used as a link road/passage by the defendant's maintenance staff who are further required to maintain the rain water harvesting pits made in the drains which runs parallel to the 40 feet road and also 20 feet road and for movement of the waste to the garbage dump situated in the south eastern boundary. That apart this area is vital for purposes of security patrolling along the boundary walls and also for providing free and easy access to the Fire Tenders and Fire Fighting personnel in an emergency and as majority of the residents of the Housing colony being senior citizens need more 60 O.S.No.814/2012 safe walking space which is not available outside as well as inside the Housing Colony in view of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike making the internal roads as public road and they have been using this common areas in which the suit schedule property is portion thererof as a walking trail ever since the Housing complex came into existence. The plaintiffs were never aggrieved abut the resolutions of meeting spra. On 08/12/2011, the members of the defendant alongwith their maintenance staff including gardeners were removing the weeds and stones present in the walking path passing through the common areas behind plot Nos.1 to 3 including the suit schedule property and at that time, the owners and the family members of some of the independent plots including these plaintiffs who have nursed ill will and disharmony towards the defendant and the majority of its members as they had thwarted their illegal and unlawful attempts to encroach upon the common 61 O.S.No.814/2012 areas behind their plots and being not able to successfully implement their malafide desire, they resorted to lodge false, baseless and frivolous complaints before the police which do not befit or uphold the dignity and impeccable characters. The said Sena Vihar Housing colon comes within the administration of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The suit schedule property is used as a passage/link road by the defendant and its staff for maintenance of several amenities and as a walking trail by the residents of the colony who are mainly senior citizens and ex-military personnel. The sites in the colony were allotted by draw of lots in the year 1990 and few were considered as 'preferential plots because they are corner plots with an extra open side and the extra cost of such preferential sites is only because of this benefit of location and not to bestow any special rights over areas outside their plots. The size of the plots allotted to plaintiffs is 40x 45' only and 62 O.S.No.814/2012 the same sized plots are allotted to all other plot owners whether it is preferential or not. The defendants had only marked a walking path measuring a mere 4 feet in width in the common area behind house nos.1,2,3,21 and 22 in which the suit schedule property is portion thereof and covered the surface with a thin layer of white ash/lime to facilitate easy recognition of the pathway by the residents to prevent them from straying outside damaging the plants and fall into ditches and potholes besides the trail. In terms of Byelaw 2.57 of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike building bye-laws, an 'open space' means an area left open to the sky. Consequent o marking of walking path, the said area is still open to the sky and remains an open space/area. There is absolutely no change of land use as alleged. They are connected by an access of not less than 3.5 metes in width, if they are not approachable directly from the existing roads. As per the norms for approval of group 63 O.S.No.814/2012 housing plan, 25% of the total area was required to be reserved by CA, parks and open spaces, subject to a minimum of 15% for parks and open spaces, and the area reserved for parks and open spaces, CA and roads was to be handedover free of cost to the Bangalore Development Authority through relinquishment deed before issue of work order. In terms of the said norms, the promoter AWHO was required to relinquish only 25% of its total area of 58,882 sq.mts of Sena Vihar Group Housing project and as such 25% of the total area so relinquished by the promoter AWHO as per Relinquishment Deed dated 18/04/1994 is approx 14,700 sq.mts. The areas behind plot Nos.1 to 3 including the suit schedule property and on the northern side of houses Nos.21 and 22 are not part of the areas so relinquished. As such no permission of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is required to mark and lay a kuchha walking path in these areas for the benefit of all the residents. No encroachment of 64 O.S.No.814/2012 any nature has been made by doing so. Along the compound of Sena Vihar Housing Colony, a minimum distance of 26 feet 3 inches has been provided from the compound to the nearest block/building as per the approved layout plan to meet the requirements of the Fire force authorities. The area behind plot Nos.1,2,3 including the suit schedule property is part of the set back area containing various infrastructure in this area for the benefit, maintenance and use by the residents for their sustenance and security. To support the contention of the defendant, incumbent president of defendant association is examined as D.W-1 and in his affidavit evidence he has reiterated the written statement averments. To support the said contention, the defendant association has produced Ex.D.1, certified copy of the layout plan, Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed of plot No.39, Ex.D.3 is the bye-law of the association, Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5 are the minutes of the meeting and bye-laws of 65 O.S.No.814/2012 association, Ex.D.7 is the resolution dated 31/08/2015, Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of the master broacher, Ex.D.9 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 18/11/1992, Ex.D.10 and Ex.D.11 are the attested copy of two letters dated 24/06/1998 and 09/09/1998, Ex.D.12 is the eleven photos, ed13 and 14 are the two CDs.
12. On perusal of the description of the schedule property is as under :
Land developed with trees and garden plants existing between House Nos.1 and the southern boundary wall of Sena Vihar Housing Complex, Kammanahalli main road, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore bounded on East by land abutting house No.2, West by 40 feet wide layout road, North by house No.1 and South by southern boundary wall.
No doubt the plaintiffs are the owners of the plot No.1 and they constructed the house at Sena Vihar Housing Complex located at Kammanahalli, Kalayananagar post, Bangalore promoted and 66 O.S.No.814/2012 developed by Army Welfare Housing Organisation. The apartment owners often acted detrimental to the interest of the independent house owners in the administration of this Housing Complex. In the AGM in July, 2008 a resolution was passed to put up a 7 feet wide walking tracks or private street area connecting 40 feet road and 20 feet road on the southern end and the northern end over the open space between the houses 1,2 and 3 and the southern outer wall on the southern side and between house Nos.21 and 22 and the northern outer compound wall on the northern side. As per documents available on record, the abutting independent house owners including the plaintiffs protested against the resolution as the construction of walking track or the private street over the open space behind houses 1,2 and 3 and the outer compound wall would threaten the security of those houses. The plaintiffs and other independent house owners made representations to 67 O.S.No.814/2012 the defendant association vide representations dated 10/10/2011 against the proposed walking track or private street. The suit property is a portion of open space. It is not required the prior sanction from the Bangalore Development Authority to put up the walking track or the private street. The connecting 40 feet wide middle road in the plotted area with the 20 feet wide eastern side road at the southern and northern ends by the 7 feet wide walking track, would not amount to alteration of the basic sanctioned plan of the layout from the Bangalore Development Authority without permission of the authority. On perusal of cross-examination of P.W-1, it is admitted that plaintiffs have purchased pot No.1 in the AWHO, further admitted that the dimension of the property purchased by plaintiff is east-west 40 feet and north- south 45 feet and also the said site plot is a preferential site. Further admitted that said site is corner site. Further admitted that Ex.D.1 is layout 68 O.S.No.814/2012 plan and opposite to his plot there is plot No.39 owned by Mr.Thomas. The registered sale deed of plot No.39 is admitted by plaintiff and it is marked as Ex.D.2. Further, admitted that there is open area between plot No.1 and boundary wall on the southern side. Further admitted that either defendant or AWHO have not permitted to plant fruit bearing trees in the vacant space. Further admitted that area beyond his plot is not given for his enjoyment and his plot is not touching to the land mark boundary wall. Further admitted that plot No.30 is not touching to plot No.1 on the northern side. Further, in the cross- examination held on 22/07/2016, P.W-1 admitted that in Ex.P.1 sale deed there is no reference of any kind of right, title and interest over the suit property is partially correct. Further admitted that suit property is not in his possession and the sale deed specifies that he has become the member of Sena Vihar Housing Co-operative Society. Further admitted that he is 69 O.S.No.814/2012 bound by the terms and conditions imposed in the C schedule of his sale deed. Further admitted that contents of Bye-law No.2 are correct. Ex.D.4 is the minutes of meeting dated 29/05/1994. Further admitted that being member of the society, he is bound by the terms and conditions, bye-laws as per Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5. Further admitted that there is a free movement of maintenance of defendants, BESCOM, BWSSB, Security personal etc. Further admitted that there is main electrical feeder line running into the housing colony laid parallel to southern boundary wall. Further admitted that there is an 8 inch pipe line running in the service area. Further, P.W-1 in his cross-examination held on 06/08/2016 admitted that apartment owners and independent owners attended the AGM. Further admitted that defendants have rejected his representation of Ex.P.11 at Ex.P.12.
13. D.W-1 in his cross-examination admitted that Bangalore Development Authority has acquired 14 70 O.S.No.814/2012 acres 22 guntas of land for the purpose of formation of a housing complex for Army Officers and handedover to Army Welfare Housing Organisation. It is admitted that plan has to be sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority. Further, admitted that after completion of the project relinquishment deed has to be executed in favour of Bangalore Development Authority. Further admitted that Ex.P.4 is the sketch annexed with allotment letter of the plaintiff. Further admitted that as per modified plan Ex.D.1 there is a open well between the blocking the road and the well was in existence since from the beginning. Further, admitted that as per Ex.P.8 total area of 362.78 sq.mts is relinquished with peripheral road is relinquished. The peripheral road is having access and abutting to preferential plots other than the plaintiff's plots. Further admitted that pipelines are beneath the main lines and the electricity wires runs over the southern side open space service area. Further admitted that co- 71 O.S.No.814/2012 operative society so formed is to manage common facilities and common areas. Further admitted that as per Ex.P.23, the revised modified plan there are 13 apartment blocks and 71 independent blocks.
13. According to plaintiff, the owners of house Nos.1 to 3 are in permissive possession of open area of their houses. But no materials are produced by the plaintiffs to show that they have permissive possession of open area of their houses only. As per Ex.P.1, i.e., sale deed dated 30/04/1996, only measurement as mentioned in the Ex.P.1 has been allotted to them and as per the terms of 'C' schedule, purchaser shall have free and uninterrupted right of passage and liberty and all the persons authorized or permitted or authorized to do similar right at all times and for all purposes to use common areas in the schedule B property and the lands in and around the A schedule property as per clause-1. Further, Ex.P.3 reveals that plaintiffs are allotted plot No.1 only and it is not included in the suit 72 O.S.No.814/2012 schedule property and common areas. In plot No.1 measuring 200 sq.yds. and the same has been handedover to the plaintiff. Here it is not the case of the plaintiff that nobody disturbed his possession of the plot No.1. Ex.P.8 is the Relinquishment Deed wherein AWHO has relinquished the internal road, culverts and drains parallel to the road mentioned in detail at clause-A of schedule, 11 Totlots mentioned in clause-B schedule and children park between building blocks 'C' and 'F' as mentioned in clause-L of the schedule in favour of the Bangalore Development Authority for their development and maintenance. As per Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, the representations made by the plaintiff on 10/10/2011 and 17/10/2011 to the defendant and the same was rejected by the defendant as per Ex.P.12. But except plaintiff, none of the house/flat owners have approached this Court. Ex.P.26 is the modified layout plan produced by the plaintiff, the total area of housing colony mentioned as 73 O.S.No.814/2012 58881-27 sq.mts and FSI permissible is 1,47,203.175 sq.mts. The proposed construction shown as per the plan is 47,176.475 sq.mts. comprising 11 flats and 7 banglows by retaining the 8" area as open space for beneficial enjoyment of the owner members. As per Ex.P.3, revised layout plan comprised 13 apartments and 71 banglows was implemented. According to plaintiff, the defendants have no right or power to alter or modify the basic approved plan of the layout placed at Annexure-III based on which the promoter AWHO had sold plots to the allottees. But in this case, plaintiffs themselves produced Ex.P.23, revised plan. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that they questioned the activities of the defendant before the Bangalore Development Authority nor Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. For approval of plan or disapproval of pan, the right vested with Bangalore Development Authority and Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike only. P.W-1 in his 74 O.S.No.814/2012 cross-examination admitted that Ex.D.1 is the revised layout plan and it was confronted by the defendant at the time of cross-examination. In the said plan, measurement of the suit schedule common area is more than 40'x45' i.e., East-West 45' and North to South on the western side 40 ft and eastern side is more than 40ft. Further, the said layout plan reveals that northern side of the plot Nos.1 to 3 is layout road as well as situated in plot nos.1 and 39 and measurement of the layout road area between plot No.1 and 39 measures about 31 ft in extent and from plot Nos.2 and 3 onwards till the road on the eastern side of plot No.3, the layout road measures 18 feet in extent. Further P.W-1 in his cross-examination admitted that suit schedule common area is open area and the same is not conveyed to him. But he claims that within his boundaries, service area is situated. But as per Ex.P.1, measurement mentioned as East West 40 ft and North to South 45 ft. It is not the case 75 O.S.No.814/2012 of the plaintiff that within that measurement suit schedule common area is coming. P.W-1 in his cross- examination admitted that Ex.D.2, the sale deed is of plot No.39. In the said sale deed, southern boundary of plot No.39 is shown in B schedule of the sale deed is shown as plot No.1. Hence, it cannot be said that plot No.39 is included the layout road measuring 31 ft in width situated in plot No.39 and plot No.1. In Ex.P.1, the area beyond plot No.1 is not given for enjoyment of the plaintiffs and said plot not touching to the landmark boundary wall on the southern side of plot No.39 on the northern side. According to plaintiff, they have not encroached the area of 31 ft layout road situated between plot No.1 and 30. But they have planted trees bearing fruits in that area. P.W-1 in his cross-examination admitted that suit schedule property was not in their possession. Further, P.W-1 in this cross-examination admitted that there is free movement of maintenance persons of defendants and 76 O.S.No.814/2012 other authorities in the suit schedule common area and there is a main electrical feeder line running into the house colony laid parallel to the southern boundary wall and an 8 inch water pipeline running in the service area.
14. The plaintiff counsel relied on the decision reported in 2006(5) Kar.L.J 630 (DB) in the case of Bhavani Housing co-operative Society Limited(R), Bangalore V/s Bangalore Development Authority and another. The above decision is not supporting the present case of plaintiff. The plaintiff has not produced any materials to show that defendant association has violated the revised plan as per Ex.P.23. It is pertinent to note that suit schedule property has been in administration, management and control of defendant association. The defendant association is existing in accordance with Ex.D.8, the AWHO rules. As per the Bye-laws, all common area and facilities are jointly owned by the owners and shall 77 O.S.No.814/2012 be managed and maintained by the defendant society on behalf of the owners. The materials produced by the plaintiff and also defendants reveals that area beyond plot No.1 being common area and they cannot claim to have exclusive right over the use of such common area and defendant association having right to maintain such areas for the common good of all residential people. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that defendant association has permanently constructed jogging/walking track in the suit schedule property. The area mentioned in the B schedule of the plaintiff's sale deed as per Ex.P.1 only has been allotted to them and that even though in their sale deed, the southern boundary is shown as boundary wall, the measurement of the property is shown as 40'x45' only. I have already stated that there is no dispute with regard to measurement as mentioned in Ex.P.1 i.e., sale deed and measurement mentioned as 40x45 ft. 78 O.S.No.814/2012 Marking of walking path cannot be said that construction of a private street. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that after marking of the walking path, whether open area has remained closed. According to defendants, even though after marking of the walking path, the said area is still open to sky and remains an open area. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that after marking of walking path, whether there is change of land use as alleged by the plaintiffs. But no materials are produced by the plaintiff to show that change of land use as alleged by the plaintiff after marking of walking path. As per Bangalore Development Authority rules, before marking of walking path, it is just and necessary to take permission of Bangalore Development Authority. It is well settled law that as per norms for approval of group housing plan, 25% of the total area was required to be reserved for CA, parks and open spaces, subject to 79 O.S.No.814/2012 minimum of 15% for parks and open spaces and the area reserved for parks and open spaces, CA and roads was to be handedover free of cost to the Bangalore Development Authority through registered relinquishment deed before issue of work order. In this case also as per terms, the promoter AWHO was required to relinquish only 25% of its total area of 58,882 sq.mts of Sena Vihar Groupd Housing Project and as such 25% of the total area so relinquished by the promoter AWHO as per Relinquishment Deed dated 18/04/1994. The defendants have taken specific contention that area under issue behind houses Nos.1 to 3 in which the suit schedule property is portion thereof and on the northern side of the house Nos.21 and 22 are not part of the areas so relinquished and hence do not come under the control of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. According to defendant association, lay a kuchha walking path in these areas for the benefit of all the residents. Here in this case, 80 O.S.No.814/2012 plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that defendant association has laid permanent walking path in the said areas. According to defendant association, kuchha walking path is laid only for the benefit of residents. I have already stated that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that while laying kuchha walking path, the defendant association has encroached the measurement as mentioned in plot No.1. In plot No.1 already house is existing and entire measurement i.e., 40x45ft occupied by the plaintiff. As per documents defendants have not touched the property of the plaintiffs while laying kuchha walking path. The defendants prove that area under issue behind house Nos.1 to 3 in which suit schedule property is portion thereof, is part of the setback area so provided for consisting of underground water supply lines to the Sena Vihar Housing Colony, the water meters which the defendant's personnel are required to ensure security and constantly monitor, the main feeder 81 O.S.No.814/2012 electrical line to the colony, passage for security people for perimeter security patrolling and as well meant for movement of fire tenders. Further defendants prove that the infrastructure so created in the suit schedule property area is for the benefit, maintenance and use by the residents for their sustenance and security. It is pertinent to note that P.W-1 in his cross- examination admitted that defendant association is maintaining the area. It is not the duty of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to maintain personnel traversing the common area walking for the residential people through common area. It is admitted that common area is maintained by the defendant association.
15. It is pertinent to note that in this case, plaintiffs have not made a party of either Bangalore Development Authority nor Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. But plaintiffs have prayed declaration relief to declare that defendant has no right 82 O.S.No.814/2012 or power to alter or modify the basic approved plan of layout placed at Annexure-III based on which the promoter AWHO had sold plots to allottees. If defendant has modified the basic approved plan of the layout, the said matter has to be left to the Bangalore Development Authority, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike with defendant association. The Bangalore Development Authority has got every right to accept the modified plan and also concerned Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. But in this case, without made a party of Bangalore Development Authority and Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the plaintiff has taken specific contention that defendant has no right or power to alter or modify the basic approved plan of the layout. Individually defendant association cannot do the modified approved plan without support of the Bangalore Development Authority. Hence, Bangalore Development Authority is most and necessary party to take contention with 83 O.S.No.814/2012 regard to modified basic approved plan of the layout. Hence, without made party of the Bangalore Development Authority, the plaintiff cannot seek the declaration relief with respect to contention that defendant has no right to modify or alter the basic approved plan of the layout. Further, according to plaintiffs, the defendant does not get any right or authority or title or title to any part or portion of Sena Vihar Housing complex project to do any act in violation of the basic plan approved and sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority. But except plaintiffs, nobody taken contention that defendants i.e., Sena Vihar Housing Complex project to do any act in violation of the basic plan approved and sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority. According to plaintiffs, vast majority is comprised of plot owners numbering 364 as against independent house owners numbering 71. Even the 71 independent house owners have not questioned the act of the defendant 84 O.S.No.814/2012 association except the plaintiffs. Further, according to plaintiff, preferential plot Nos.1 to 3 located at south- eastern corner of the plot are allegedly provided with additional area by extending the boundary upto the compound wall and the promoters had earmarked the additional area in the preferential plots for promoting greenery and preferential plot owners are permitted to plant fruit yielding trees and garden plants. But plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that additional area is exclusively used by plot Nos.1 to
3. The plaintiffs have taken specific contention that defendant association cannot claim ownership to the common area, common facilities in the housing complex. But as per Ex.D.11, the society raised issue that old project at Sena Vihar has been planned and developed as one project. The services like water supply, electrification, drainage roads, culverts and compound wall etc., the cost has been shared by all allottees (plot owners and flat owners). The said issue 85 O.S.No.814/2012 has been intimated to the Sena Vihar. The said averments explained to Brigadadier A.N.Suryanarayan treating him as MD, AWHO on 19/07/1998. Further, it is intimated that exclusive right of each plot owner is restricted to the area of each plot allotted to him. Further in same letter, the relinquishment deed mentioned that common areas like internal roads, drains and culverts, underground drainage, water supply lines laid by BWSSB have been handedover to Bangalore Development Authority and for maintenance. According to plaintiff, AWHO has allotted plot No.1 to them, it is described in their sale deed measuring 40x45 ft. The southern boundary of which is shown as boundary No.1. But suit schedule property is the area situated in between plot No.1 on the northern side and south boundary wall. According to plaintiff, when the southern boundary wall is shown in the south side of the plot No.1 in the sale deed, the said property is exclusively belonging to the plaintiff 86 O.S.No.814/2012 and defendant has no right to form jogging track or walking trail on the plaint schedule property. The said jogging track is effected to privacy of the plaintiff to enjoy their property. As per Ex.P.1, i.e., sale deed dated 30/04/1996 executed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation in respect of the plaintiff. In the said sale deed schedule B is shown as property purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions as agreed by the parties. Further, plaintiffs have undertaken to build the residential building in accordance with the sanctioned plan of the Bangalore Development Authority. The schedule C referred in the sale deed relates to the common areas and facilities available in the schedule A property to the plaintiff in respect of the schedule B property on access from road to the schedule B property through A schedule property as passage together with all rights of way from the entrance from the road in order to reach their 87 O.S.No.814/2012 respective place or plots to be constructed by them for residential purpose. The plaintiff shall not place any restriction in areas provided for reaching the schedule A property. According to plaintiff, eastern and western boundary mentioned in the sale deed wrongly mentioned and the same are corrected by way of rectification deed. Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16/06/2000 executed in between Army Welfare Housing Organisation in favour of Col.K.M.Uttappa and others in respect of plot No.22 in which northern boundary is shown as compound wall. The conditions mentioned in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6 are one and the same. Ex.P.5 is the registration of dwelling units wherein the value of normal plot is shown as Rs.89,000/- and preferential plot is shown as Rs.96,000/-. There is only Rs.5,000/- difference in between the normal plot and preferential plots. The said document does not disclose that in view of preferential plot area and preferential flat is more than 88 O.S.No.814/2012 the area of normal plot. According to defendant, all other areas found in A schedule property mentioned in sale deed is common area, which is available for enjoyment of the defendant association and for maintenance of BWSSB, BESCOM etc., for the benefit of the members of the defendant. The said contention admitted by P.W-1 in his cross-examination. The letter dated 24/06/1998 discloses that ownership of all the common facilities already vests with all the allottees jointly and hence the ownership cannot be transferred to the society. The letter dated 09/09/1998 disclosed whole project at Sena Vihar has been planned and developed as one project. The said contents reveals that exclusive right of each plot owner is restricted to the area of each plot allotted to him. Further, bye-laws which was marked as Ex.D.3 states about the common areas and facilities. According to said provision, all road, tracks, approaches, tot lots, parks, playgrounds, open spaces, drains, compound wall, gates and any 89 O.S.No.814/2012 other areas not allotted by name to any member/allottee, including all resources, fitting, fixtures and structures located therein. All such common areas referred in the said clause and the facilities are the joint property managed and administered and maintained by the society. Rule 34 of the said bye-law states that no encroachment is permitted on common areas. All encroachments shall be evicted at the risk and expenses of the offender without any notice. It is not the case of the plaintiff that common area encroached by the defendant association by putting track way. The sale deeds produced by the plaintiff and defendants reveals that B schedule of their respective sale deeds have been allotted to the respective plot owners. Thus, though in the sale deed of the plaintiff, southern side is shown as boundary wall, the measurement of the property is shown as 40x45 ft only. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that boundaries 90 O.S.No.814/2012 mentioned in the sale deed are only measurement of 40'x45'. The defendant has proved that all the area shown in the A schedule of the sale deed i.e., Ex.P.1 except area of B schedule belongs to common area, which is also referred in the C schedule of the sale deed in Ex.P.1. Hence, southern side of the plaintiff property shown as south boundary wall will not give the plaintiff any preferential right or extra right to use and enjoy exclusively the area available behind the plot which is allotted to them. Further, defendant has proved that defendant association has formed for the development and maintenance of the project of construction of houses and plots. Further, defendant association proves that said association has power to take proper steps from time to time for the development of the entire project and the for beneficial enjoyment of the common area available in the layout. I have already stated that except plaintiffs nobody questioned the putting of jogging /walking path by the 91 O.S.No.814/2012 defendant association. Further, if the defendant association has violated the conditions of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, why should not plaintiffs have made Bangalore Development Authority or Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as party in this case. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that they questioned before the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike with respect to putting the walking track by the defendant. The plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that they have right over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant association has proved the suit schedule property is a common area belongs to all plot and flat owners of the members of the defendant association. Further, plaintiffs have failed to prove that walking track is constructed in the land lying between south side of plot Nos.1 to 3, 21 and 22 and boundary wall of Sena Vihar Housing Complex and the said property is exclusively in possession of the said 92 O.S.No.814/2012 owners. Without making Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as party, plaintiff cannot say that walking track cannot be constructed without approved plan from Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. If the said walking track disturbed the members of the defendant association, definitely the members of the defendant association would move the objections before the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. But in this case except plaintiff, nobody can question the putting of walking track. On foregoing reasons, defendant has proved that suit is highly misconceived and not maintainable in law as mentioned in the written statement because defendants having unassailable right over the suit schedule property and has been managing and maintaining the common areas and common amenities in the Sena Vihar Housing Colony. Further, plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that defendant has no right to modify the basic approved plan of the layout placed at Annexure- 93 O.S.No.814/2012 III based on which the promoter AWHO had sold plots to the allottees. Further, plaintiff is not entitled for the mandatory injunction as sought for. Accordingly, I answer issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative and issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
16. Issue No.4 : In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 to 3, plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs as sought. Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 in the Negative.
17. Issue No.5 : In view of my answers to issue Nos.1 to 4 , I pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of February, 2018).
( NAGAVENI ) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE.94 O.S.No.814/2012
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
P.W.1 Brigadier V.S.Madhavan (Retd) List of witnesses examined for the defendant :
D.W.1 Col (Dr.) V.Mukesh Kumar (Retd.) List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 Sale deed dated 30/04/1996
Ex.P.2 Rectification deed dated 25/08/2011
Ex.P.3 Handing over letter dated 19/02/1990
Ex.P.4 Taking over certificate
Ex.P.4(a) Sketch
Ex.P.5 Registration of dwelling units
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 16/06/2000
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 30/04/1996
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of the relinquishment deed dated
18/04/1994
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of the orders in Writ Petition
No.28624/2003
Ex.P.10 & 11 Office copy of two representations dated 28/11/2011 Ex.P.12 Reply Ex.P.13 Copy of complaint to Banaswadi PS. List of documents marked for the defendant :
Ex.D.1 Layout plan
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of the registered sale deed of plot
No.39
Ex.D.3 Bye-law of defendant association
Ex.D.4 Minutes of meeting dated 29/05/1994
Ex.D.5 Bye-laws
Ex.D.6 Letter dated 03/07/2010
Ex.D.7 Resolution dated 31/08/2015
Ex.D.8 Certified copy of the Master Brochure
Ex.D.9 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 18/11/1992
Ex.D.10 & 11 Attested copy of the two letters dated 24/06/1998 95 O.S.No.814/2012 and 09/09/1998 Ex.D.12 Eleven photos Ex.D.13 & 14 Two CDs ( NAGAVENI ) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE 96 O.S.No.814/2012