Bangalore District Court
Sri.B.Sambi Reddy vs M/S. Sapthagiri Enterprises on 18 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.No.19)
Dated: This the 28th day of October 2019.
Present
Smt.M.LATHA KUMARI, M.A. LL.M.,
VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.979/2014
Plaintiff: Sri.B.Sambi Reddy
S/o Late Vema Reddy
Aged about 39 years
Residing at 302, 3rd Floor,
"Janardhana Sun City",
No.31, Seenappa Layout,
New BEL Road, RMV II Stage,
Bangalore 560 079.
Represented by its mother and
Power of Attorney Holder
Smt.B.Parameshwari
(By Sri. V.S.R., Adv.)
-Vs-
Defendants: M/s. Sapthagiri Enterprises
Parnership Firm,
Having its Registered Office
At Rama Ashraya, No.31,
Seenappa Layout, New BEL
Road, RMV II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 079.
Represented by its Managing
Partner
Mr.Ajay Srinivas
[By Sri V.B.S., Adv.].
Date of institution of suit 03-02-2014
2 O.S.No.979/2014
Nature of the suit Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement 05-07-2016
of recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 28-10-2019
was pronounced
Total duration Days Months Years
25 08 05
J UDGMENT
This is plaintiff's suit filed by his mother who is also a
GPA holder seeking direction to the defendant to allot
parking space with a dimension of 2.5 mts x 5 mts space
relating to her flat No.302, as is allotted to the other
purchasers of the apartments and for consequential relief of
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
allotting or selling or physically interfering with the said
parking space of the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, the
defendant is a partnership firm engaged in construction and
development of the immovable properties. Defendant
constructed residential apartments in the name and style as
"Sapthagiri Sun City" at Seenappa Layout, New BEL Road,
RMV II Stage, Bangalore-560 079, bearing No.32/2 being
3 O.S.No.979/2014
the owner of the said property. Plaintiff purchased
residential apartment bearing No.302 in the said sapthagiri
sun city residential apartment, measuring 1986 sq.ft. with
super built up area along with 700 sq.ft. undevided share,
right, title and interest together with right to one covered car
parking spacing bearing No.302, hereinafter referred to as
the suit schedule property. It is plaintiff's further case that in
furtherance of the conveyance of the schedule property to
the plaintiff, the defendant had failed to demark the assured
car parking space to the plaintiff, as is allotted to the other
purchasers in the said project. The BBMP authorities after
the completion of the construction, has issued occupancy
certificate which clearly demonstrates the available parking
space to the occupants. Plaintiff further asserts that, on 01-
10-2011 an email sent to the defendant requesting him to
issue of car parking space in the said apartment. Since
defendant failed to initiate any steps to resolve the parking
issue, the plaintiff on 03-10-2011 and 09-10-2011 further
communicated the same to the defendant through email
and expressed his difficulty to park the car.
4 O.S.No.979/2014
3. It is plaintiffs further case that, the plaintiff due to
his employment constrained is not staying in the suit
schedule property and he has let out the same on rent and
his tenant is staying in the suit schedule property. The
plaintiff's mother is managing the affairs of the suit schedule
property. As a mother of plaintiff and also being the power
of attorney holder, it is further mentioned that, plaintiff
mother being the senior citizen and not in a position to take
bold steps and to resolve the issue with the defendant,
having no option, got issued legal notice dated 19-12-2011
to the defendant, for which defendant has given evasive
reply. Having aggrieved by the said reply, power of attorney
holder of plaintiff approached the District Consumer Forum
at Bangalore in complaint No.107/12. Considering the
complaint of the plaintiff, District Consumer Forum directed
the defendant to resolve the parking issue within a
stipulated time. Against the said order, the defendant
preferred an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission at Bangalore in Appeal
No.557/2012. The said Consumer Forum by allowing the
5 O.S.No.979/2014
appeal filed by the defendant dismiss the order passed by
District Consumer Forum.
4. It is plaintiff further case that, the defendant
without any reason, has not alloted the required parking
space and allotted the same according to his whims and
fancies. Initially, defendant had allotted a parking space
which would accommodate a car and later the defendant to
overcome his fault, sent an email to the occupants in
accordance stating that car parking space will be
reassigned. While making such reassignment, plaintiff has
been given car parking with a small measurement
consisting of pillars on either side and it is difficult for the
plaintiff to park his car. Plaintiff has paid separate amount
towards car parking space while getting his sale deed
executed from the defendant in respect of suit schedule
property on 16-04-2009 the defendant is holding 3 car
parking space arbitrarily and he can always make an
exchange and re-allot car parking space to the plaintiff
measuring 2.5 mts.x5 mts. as per BBMP measurements.
The present car parking space allotted to the plaintiff is
6 O.S.No.979/2014
smaller one where car cannot be parked in the said alloted
space to the plaintiff, because of this situation, plaintiff has
put to great hardship and mental agony. The cause of
action for filing the suit arose when the defendant sold the
suit schedule property to the plaintiff on 16-04-2009 and
also when plaintiff approached Consumer Forum and
having no other way, plaintiff constrained to file this suit for
the reliefs mentioned supra.
5. On issuance of suit summons, defendant filed his
written statement stating that, suit is barred by limitation and
is liable to be dismissed. Plaintiff has filed the suit on 03-
02-2014 i.e. after laps of more than 7 years from the date of
the simultaneous agreement and construction and more
than 5 years from the date of the sale deed executed by the
defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
schedule property and hence prayed for dismissal of this
suit with cost. One more preliminary objection raised by
defendant that, plaintiff has not valued his relief in
accordance with law. The plaintiff seeks specific
performance of the contract and the Sale Deed in which the
7 O.S.No.979/2014
sale consideration amount is Rs.57,82,473/- and the Court
Fee payable is 2,17,800/- whereas the plaintiff has paid
only a sum of Rs.225/- towards Court Fee and hence, it is
necessary to reject the plaint even on the point of Court Fee
and defendant has denied that the plaintiff got issued email
to the defendant on 01-10-2011 requesting to resolve the
parking issue.
6. Defendant admits that, plaintiff has purchased suit
schedule property from him and specifically states that, no
representation were made by the defendant or its agent to
induce the plaintiff to purchase the apartment. The plaintiff
having seen the building and approached himself and
purchased the suit schedule property. Defendant also
admits the dispute pertaining to parking issue between
himself and plaintiff before District Consumer Forum and
also appeal filed by him before state Consumer Forum. He
has denied exchange of any emails between himself and
the plaintiff. Defendant specifically states that there is no
cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. It is also
mentioned that, cause of action arose on 07-01-2014 when
8 O.S.No.979/2014
the order passed by State Forum and he cannot be vexed
again for the same cause of action. The averments of the
plaints reveals that the suit is barred by limitation.
7. It is further asserted that, the plaintiff having
approached the defendant on 05-03-2007 remitted the
booking advance of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the apartment
No.302 and further Rs.2,00,000/- towards at covered car
parking area, have also entered into the construction
agreement and agreement to sell dated 14-03-2007. When
the construction was completed, the defendant has
executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff and in
the sale deed covered car parking area was clearly allotted
the plaintiff inspected the suit schedule property premises
and only when he was satisfied with the same he came
forward to join the execution of the sale deed and hence
plaintiff is now estoped from claiming the relief sought.
Since from the date of execution of the sale deed and also
from the date of possession, plaintiff has not been disturbed
by this defendant, plaintiff is in possession of the flat No.302
9 O.S.No.979/2014
along with the car parking space alloted as per sale deed
with any interference.
8. The plaintiff is in the habit of harassing other
residents of the building and in this regard has frequently
complained to the other residents of the building demanding
that one or the other apartment owner shall exchange
parking space with the plaintiff, but no avail. On 19-12-
2011, it is after laps of 2 years and 8 months from the
registered sale deed, the plaintiff issued legal notice
demanding the car parking area and also demanded that
some other car parking owner can exchange the same.
Even plaintiff Power of attorney holder demanded for
exchange and also preferred complaints before District
Consumer Forum. Having exhausted such remedies as now
filed this suit without any cause of action. Hence, pray for
dismissal of the suit with cost.
9. Based on these pleadings, this Court has framed
following issues:
10 O.S.No.979/2014
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled for car parking space measuring
2.5 meters x 5 meters relating to his flat
No.302?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant has discriminated against the
plaintiff without allotting the car parking
area?
3. Whether defendant proves that the suit is
barred by limitation?
4. Whether defendant proves that the suit is
not valued properly and that the court fee
paid is insufficient?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves the cause of
action to file this suit?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of permanent injunction and the
reliefs claimed?
7. What order or decree?
10. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and
got marked as many as 26 documents as per Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.21. Defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and got
marked as many as 7 documents as per Ex.D1 to D7.
11. I have carefully scrutinized entire records before
me. Heard the arguments. I have also perused written
arguments filed by defendant.
11 O.S.No.979/2014
12. My findings on the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 : In the
Issue No.2 : In the
Issue No.3 : In the
Issue No.4 : In the
Issue No.5 : In the
Issue No.6 : In the
Issue No.7 : In the
Issue No.8 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
13. ISSUES NO.1 & 2: These two issues are taken up
together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts and
circumstances of the case.
As I have already stated this is a declaration suit filed
by plaintiffs GPA holder seeking direction to the defendant
to allot car parking space to the plaintiff measuring 2.5 mts.
X 5 mts. in Sapthagiri Sun City. Plaintiff in para 6 of his
plaint mentioned that due to his employment constrains is at
present not staying in the suit schedule flat and he has let
out the same on rental basis to a tenant and at present
same is occupied by tenant. It is further mentioned that
12 O.S.No.979/2014
plaintiff's mother is managing the affairs of the suit schedule
property under the strength of power of attorney executed
by him. Purchase of suit schedule property by plaintiff from
the defendant on 16-04-2009 is not in dispute. It is also not
in dispute that in the said sale deed the car parking space is
specifically described as B schedule property. Plaintiff's
GPA holder who is also mother of plaintiff
Smt.B.Parameshwari through whom plaintiff has filed the
suit was examined as PW-1 before this Court. In her chief-
affidavit PW-1 by reiterating entire plaint averments got
marked as many as 21 documents. The vital document is
the said sale deed dated 16-04-2009 which is as per Ex.P.1.
In this Sale deed there is no specific mention of the
measurement of car parking space. It is the contention of
the plaintiff that defendant is holding arbitrarily 3 car parking
space for himself and randomly allotted the parking slots to
the plaintiff according to his whims and fancies. It is further
case of the plaintiff that, initially defendant alloted a parking
a space which would accommodate a car, later while
making re-arrangement, allotted car parking space/slot to
the plaintiff at his whims and fancies.
13 O.S.No.979/2014
14. In her cross-examination PW-1 admits that she
has gone through the recital in her sale deed dated 16-04-
2009 and also admits that, at the time of purchase of suit
schedule flat, there was no existence of apartment owners
association and said association came to be formed only in
the year 2011. PW-1 admits that she herself is one of the
member for the said association and she has participated in
various association meetings, whenever she was available
in India. She also admits that in Ex.P.1 B schedule there is
reference about measurement of the car parking. She also
admits that after constitution of welfare Association, 1 st
defendant has transferred the rights pertaining to
apartments to the association and voluntarily states that
defendant himself is managing the overall affairs of the
apartments. She also admits that, association authorities
are taking care of all facilities pertaining to building. She
admits that in the said apartment building defendant is
having one flat she pleaded her ignorance to the suggestion
that, after forming the association defendant has not
retained any ownership pertaining to said flats.
14 O.S.No.979/2014
15. In para 3 of her cross-examination she
categorically states that car parking space is available
vacant even at present she also deposes that she is not
having any car and further states that she has let out the
suit schedule property to some tenant and her tenants are
having car. PW-1 admits that, at no point of time she
resided in the suit schedule property are parked her car.
She has denied the suggestion that, the parking issue is not
her personal issue. She has also admits that her tenants
are not given any requisition to her in writing with regard to
car parking space. She specifically states that, the tenants
at present are parking their cars somewhere else. She also
admits that there exist, 35 car parking space in the said
apartment building and apartment association itself is taking
care of the parking slot also.
16. According to PW-1 in the E-mail addressed by the
defendant to the plaintiff the measurement of the cars slot
was shown as 5 meter in length and 2.5 meter in width
whereas he has allotted car parking space measuring less
than 5 meter in length and width is only 1.8 meter. PW-1
15 O.S.No.979/2014
admits in her cross-examination on 27-07-2017 that, in
Ex.P.10 which is a photograph produced by the plaintiff,
their exists her car parking space. She also admits that said
space is an existence even as on today. She has denied
the suggestion that on the date of Ex.P.1 itself, possession
of the car parking space has been handed over to her. She
has also denied the suggestion that earlier PW-1 used to
park her car in the space alloted for the purpose by
defendant. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that, defendant
being the owner of one flat as retained only one car parking
area and states that he is holding 3 car parking area. PW-1
has also denied the suggestion that she has raised car
parking issue after laps of 2 years 8 months from the date
of execution of sale deed. When she was suggested that,
with regard to car parking issued plaintiff shall questioned
residence welfare association, PW-1 states that she has
already talk to them. She has also denied the suggestion
that, since there is no existence of other car parking space,
it is difficult to allot different car parking space to the
plaintiff. She admits that, she has gone through Ex.P.8 and
submits that she requested BBMP authorities to measure
16 O.S.No.979/2014
her car parking area and at the time of said measurement
defendant was not available at the spot. In this regard,
plaintiff has produced Ex.P.8 report submitted by BBMP
stating that the measurement of plaintiff's car parking space
is 1.90x4.50 meter whereas according to rules plaintiffs are
to be provided with car parking space measuring 2.50x5 ft.
17. Admittedly, in the sale deed of plaintiff i.e. Ex.P.1
there is no reference about measurement of the car space
area and in the B schedule of the said sale deed it is only
recited that plaintiff has been provided with 1 car parking
space. It is not in dispute that the car parking space
forthcoming in Ex.P.10 is the car parking space alloted to
plaintiff. Though it is the contention of the plaintiff that, the
other flat owners have been given sufficient car parking
space and only plaintiff has not been given with such car
parking space. To substantiate the same plaintiff not at all
examined either resident of the welfare association or any
one of the residence of the flats. Though it is not the case of
the plaintiff that her tenants are facing inconvenience in
parking the car, for the first time in her cross-examination
17 O.S.No.979/2014
PW-1 states that her tenants are facing inconvenience. In
Ex.P.8 only the measurement of plaintiff's car parking area
is forthcoming and not the remaining 34 owners car space.
If defendant has alloted car parking space at his whims and
fancies, there was no necessity for the plaintiff to purchase
suit schedule flat. Except the self statements that she has
been provided with lesser measurement and plaintiff is
holding still 3 car parking area for himself, plaintiff has not
produced any documents to substantiate and contention.
Admittedly, plaintiff never resided in the suit schedule flat
nor she was not having any scope to park her car in the B
schedule area of Ex.P.1. From the beginning plaintiff has let
out suit schedule flat in favour of her tenant. It is also not in
dispute that, the plaintiff not produced any piece of paper to
establish that only she has been given car parking space
with lesser measurement.
18. That was the case, plaintiff had not difficulty to
get the other car parking space measured by BBMP
authorities while measuring the car parking space of plaintiff
in pursuance of Ex.P.8. This silence on part of plaintiff
18 O.S.No.979/2014
establishes that she has not approached the Court with
clean hand. It is not in dispute that their exist 35 flats in the
sun city Flat Owners Association and defendant is one of
the member for the said flat. With regard to 34 remaining
owners, none of them have any grievance. It is the
contention of the plaintiff that she approached flat owners
welfare association regarding the car parking issue. Even to
substantiate the same plaintiff neither examined President
or Secretary of the said association or any member of the
same. Plaintiff purchased suit schedule property in the year
2009 whereas the e-mails relied upon by the plaintiff's in
Ex.P.16 to P.18 are all of the year 2011. In Ex.P.16 though
there is reference that plaintiff was notified by his tenant
that due to existence of 2 pillars in his parking slots it is not
possible to park a car there, and same has been confirmed
by the association members, plaintiff has not produced any
piece of paper in this regard and also neither examined her
tenant nor any such members of the association.
19. That apart it is the contention of the plaintiff that,
initially plaintiff has been alloted with sufficient car parking
19 O.S.No.979/2014
space and later while making re-arrangement of the same,
defendant allotted car parking slot at his own whims and
fancies. Whereas these contentions were not raised by the
plaintiff in Ex.P.16. In Ex.P.17 though there is reference
about plaintiff's tenant Harsha stating that he is parking his
car in the apartment No.402 parking space because he is
unable to park his car in parking space for 302, plaintiff not
at all examined said Harsha before this Court, on the other
hand PW-1 admits that she is not having any car. In Ex.P.17
it is also mentioned that Mrs.Padma Kumari mother of PW-
1 was at the apartment few days back and confirmed that
car parking space for plaintiff's flat indeed where is small.
Then what others have been allotted. What is the
measurement of the car parking space of remaining 34 flat
owners is neither mentioned by the plaintiff in her plaint nor
any documents are produced in this regard. Even in these
documents Ex.P.16 to P.18 it is not stated that, initially
plaintiff was allotted with bigger car parking space and later
same has been changed to smaller space randomly.
20 O.S.No.979/2014
20. In the cross-examination of DW-1 it is elicited that
he has executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff as per
Ex.P.1 and also DW-1 admits about order passed by State
Consumer Forum. Plaintiff not produced any document to
establish that defendant assured plaintiff while purchasing
suit schedule property that a car parking area measuring
2.5 mts.x5 mts will be provided to the plaintiff. Admittedly in
the sale deed of plaintiff there is not measurement of car
parking space is forthcoming. Even to show that defendant
has alloted bigger space to other flat owners and pretty
small car parking space to the plaintiff, plaintiff has not
produced any documents before this Court. Except the self
statement of plaintiff, there is absolutely no documentary
evidence produced by the plaintiff in respect of
measurement of the car parking area. Admittedly plaintiff is
not residing in the suit schedule flat nor PW-1 is having any
car of her own. Under such circumstances what made the
plaintiff to approach defendant raising issue of car parking
after laps of almost 2 years 8 months from the date of
Ex.P.1 has not been substantiate by the plaintiff with
sufficient documents. The oral testimony of PW-1
21 O.S.No.979/2014
establishes that she has not approached this court with
clean hand and she has also not produced any documents
to substantiate her claim.
21. In Ex.P.1 there is recital at page 3 that initial
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid by two different
cheques dated 28-02-2007 and 02-03-2007. These recitals
establishes the contentions of the defendant that plaintiff
and defendant entered into an agreement to sell and
construct dated 14-03-2007. Whereas plaintiff not produced
any such agreement and there is absolutely no pleadings
with regard to various payments made by the plaintiff
towards purchase of the suit schedule flat in the year 2007
itself i.e. 2 years prior to execution of Ex.P.1. So also the
terms and conditions discussed amongst themselves
pertaining to measurement of the car parking space at that
time. In clause No.13 of Ex.P.1 it is specifically recited that
"The purchaser shall use the car parking space for parking
a light vehicle and not for any other purpose". Considering
these circumstances and also non availability of the car
parking area in Ex.P.1 and measurement of other flat
22 O.S.No.979/2014
owners car parking space in Ex.P.8. I answer these two
issues in the Negative.
22. ISSUE NO.3: Admittedly plaintiff purchased suit
schedule property on 16-04-2009 in the sale deed of
plaintiff Ex.P.1 the measurement of car parking space is not
forthcoming. Whereas plaintiff filed the suit questioning the
car parking space alloted to plaintiff on 03-02-2014 i.e.
almost after laps of 5 years. In Ex.P.1 there is recital at
page 3 that initial amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid by
two different cheques dated 28-02-2007 and 02-03-2007.
These recitals establishes the contentions of the defendant
that plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement to
sell and construct dated 14-03-2007. Whereas plaintiff not
produced any such agreement and there is absolutely no
pleadings with regard to various payments made by the
plaintiff towards purchase of the suit schedule flat in the
year 2007 itself i.e. 2 years prior to execution of Ex.P.1. If
said payment is taken into consideration this suit is filed
after laps of almost 7 years from the date of first payment
i.e. 28-02-2007. The cause of action mentioned in para 13
23 O.S.No.979/2014
of the plaint is 16-04-2009. Even if this date is considered
suit is not filed within 3 years from the date of Ex.P.1.
Accordingly suit is barred by limitation. Hence I answer
Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
23. ISSUE NO.4 & 5: These two issues are taken up
together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts and
circumstances of the case.
The relief sought by the plaintiff is in the nature of
declaration and for consequential relief of permanent
injunction. Plaintiff has paid the court fee of Rs.225/-.
Plaintiff's claim is based on the instruments Ex.P.1 the sale
deed executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. As per
the provisions of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act a
contract or other instrument is writing does not expressed
their real intention then either of the party can institute suit
to rectify the instrument and the plaintiff may in any suit in
which any right arising under the instruments is in issue
claim in his pleading for rectification of the same. The
grievance of the plaintiff in this suit is that she has not been
allotted with car space with sufficient measurement.
24 O.S.No.979/2014
Admittedly in Ex.P.1 at schedule B there is no measurement
in respect of car space slot alloted to plaintiff. With regard
to measurement the instrument is silent. Under such
circumstances the only course open to the plaintiff is to
seek for rectification of the instrument to an extent of
mentioning the parking space measurement in the sale
deed and then proceed with such other relief based on such
rectification. Whereas plaintiff without seeking any relief
under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act has come up
with this suit seeking direction to the defendant to allot
parting space measuring 2.5 mts.x5 mts. That apart
plaintiff's claim is under the sale deed the Court Fee has not
been calculated based on the amount recited in the sale
deed.
24. All these circumstances establishes that plaintiff
neither paid proper court fee nor their exist cause of action
for the plaintiff to seek for a direction to the defendant under
the instrument Ex.P.1 without rectifying the same as
required under the Provisions of the Section 26 of the
25 O.S.No.979/2014
Specific Relief Act. Accordingly, I have answered these
two issues in the affirmative.
25. ISSUE NO.6: Admittedly before filing this suit
plaintiff approached District Consumer Forum by filing
complaint No.107/12 as per Ex.P.7. Against orders passed
under said complaint the defendant preferred Appeal No.
557/2012 before State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Bengaluru while considering the claim of the
respective parties it is observed that there is no dispute with
regard to the allotment of car parking space under the sale
deed i.e. Ex.P.1. Further, the complaint filed by plaintiff
came to be dismissed. In spite of such observation plaintiff
has come up before this Court seeking for similar relief by
way of filing this suit. The fundamental principles of national
justice is that, know man shall be vexed twice for the same
cause of action and further as per the provision of Order 2
Rule 1 to 3 of CPC the duty casted on the plaintiff to include
all her claim at once. Above all the claim of the plaintiff is
barred under law. All these circumstances, not only
disentitles the plaintiff for the reliefs claimed, but also
establishes that plaintiff has not approached this Court with
26 O.S.No.979/2014
clean hand and clean heart. Plaintiff having failed to
establish are main contention that she is entitled for car
parking space measuring 2.5 mts.x5 mts., she is not entitled
for the relief of permanent injunction. That apart it is not of
the case of plaintiff that, defendant is interfering with her
peaceful possession of existing car parking space. Under
such circumstances she is not at all entitled for equitable
relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, I answer this
issue in the Negative.
26. ISSUE NO.7: In view of my findings on Issue
No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Suit filed by the plaintiff through his power of attorney holder seeking direction to the defendant to allot parking space with a dimension of 2.5 mts x 5 mts space relating to her flat No.302, as is allotted to the other purchasers of the apartments and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from allotting or selling or physically interfering with the said 27 O.S.No.979/2014 parking space of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
*** (Dictated to the Stenographer, and on computer, computerized and print out taken by her, revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court today the 28th day of October 2019).
(M. LATHA KUMARI) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
PW.1 : Smt.B.Parameshwari Witness examined on behalf of Defendants:
DW.1 : Sri.Ajay Srinivas Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Registered Sale Deed dated 16-04-2009.
Ex.P.2 General power of attorney dated 05-06-2010 Exs.P.3 to Tax paid receipts P.6 Ex.P.7 Order copy of Karnataka state consumer disputes redressal 28 O.S.No.979/2014 commission, Appeal No.557/2012 Ex.P.8 Copy of BBMP permission letter dated 27-05-2016 Exs.P.9 to Photographs P.14 Ex.P.15 CD Exs.P.16 E-mails to P.18 Ex.P.19 Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.20 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.21 Copy of Without Prejudice Ex.P.22 Occupancy Certificate Ex.P.23 Commencement Certificate Ex.P.24 Reply notice dated 05-01-2012 Ex.P.25 Copy of Email Ex.P.26 Copy of Email Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
Exs.D.1 to Photographs D.6 Ex.D.7 CD VII. ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.29 O.S.No.979/2014
Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate Judgment) ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff through his power of attorney holder seeking direction to the defendant to allot parking space with a dimension of 2.5 mts x 5 mts space relating to her flat No.302, as is allotted to the other purchasers of the apartments and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from allotting or selling or physically interfering with the said parking space of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(M.LATHA KUMARI) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.