Bangalore District Court
M/S G Corp Spaces Private Limited vs Tulsi Kumari on 28 October, 2024
1 O.S.No.959/2024
KABC010032832024
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-2)
PRESENT
Sri. B.P.Devamane, LL.M.
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2024
O.S.No.959 / 2024
Plaintiff: M/s. G-Corp. Spaces Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company incorporated under
Companies Act, 1956
Reg. Office at 21/9, Craig Park Layout,
Off. M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
Rep. by its authorized signatory,
Smt.P.Laxmi Narayan.
(By Sri.K.R.Krishna Murthy, Adv.)
- VS -
Defendants: 1. Smt.Tulsi Kumar,
W/o. Sri.Mahesh Gajendran,
Aged about 37 years.
2. Sri.Mahesh Gajendran,
S/o. Sri.Gajendran Babu,
Aged about 42 years.
Both are r/at No.56, Rajagopal Mudaliyar
Street, Austin Town, VTC Viveknagar,
Bengaluru-560 047.
2 O.S.No.959/2024
Presently r/at Flat No.A-205, A-Block,
G-Crop Residences, ST Bed Layout,
Koramangala, Bengaluru.
(Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit 05.02.2024.
Nature of the Suit (suit for pronote, Permanent Injunction.
Suit for declaration & possession,
Suit for injunction, etc.):
Date of the commencement of 18.04.2024.
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 28.10.2024.
pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration:
- 08 23
(B.P.Devamane)
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction.
2. The facts of the plaintiff's case in brief are that;
a) The plaintiff is a Developer of various projects till now including "G-CORP RESIDENCES", in which, the defendants are the residents. Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing site No's 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 3 O.S.No.959/2024 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 in the residential layout approved by the BDA. The plaintiff intended and planned for the development scheme on the said property into a residential apartment known as "G- CORP RESIDENCES" consisting of 232 apartments spread over 3 Blocks clubbed with two common basements, Ground Floor and several upper floors, common compound, entrances, lobbies, staircases, lifts, car parking spaces, health club, garden and passages etc., in accordance with the relevant plans, approvals and consents given by relevant departments.
2b) Defendants are the purchasers of the apartment bearing No.A-205, Block-A, having super built-up area of 1339 Sq.ft. Plaintiff and defendants have entered into registered Deed of declaration dated 27.09.2022. In pursuance of the agreement of Sale dated 01.02.2022, the plaintiff has executed a registered Sale Deed dated 07.07.2023 in favour of the defendants for total sale consideration of Rs.1,38,62,450/-. Pursuant to the agreement and purchase of the apartment, the defendants were permitted to use one (1) covered car parking space in the basement of the building having A 301 on the left side and A-406 on the right side while facing the parking space and identified as A-205 in the Lower basement of the building. At the time of sale of the Apartment, all the purchasers of apartment including the defendants were given an option to take more than one car parking space depending upon their requirements, Several purchasers have opted for Two (2) car parking spaces. Whereas defendants have not opted for additional car parking space. Defendants have undertaken & covenant with the developer that the plaintiffs are only entitled to exclusive use of identified car parking space granted to them. However, such allotment of car 4 O.S.No.959/2024 parking space will not create any right to the car parking space other than right to use. Even under the Sale Deed, it is made clear that, the purchasers including the defendants have no vested right in the car parking space. Under the sale deed, while conveying the Apartment described in Schedule-D of the sale deed, car parking space for which the defendants were given right to use exclusively has been identified. However, in the sale agreement and sale deed, defendants have convent and agreed that they have no vested right in the car parking space. Plaintiff has provided car parking spaces as per the standard measurement prescribed by the authorities and building code. The standard space for car parking space is 2.5M X 5.5M. Subsequent to approval of the Plan, plaintiff has also installed the mechanical car parking. Majority of the residents are finding it inconvenient while parking their bigger car. There was lot of discussions, deliberations & meetings between the plaintiff, GCR Working Committee and purchasers of the apartment in the building including the defendants herein, before taking the decision to install built to suit mechanical car parking systems.
2c) Purchasers of the apartment were still in the process of forming their own committee of association and take over the maintenance of the building complex. Several proactive residents including the defendants herein, formed a committee known as "GCR Working Committee" for putting forth their requirement to the plaintiff and to deal with the common requirements of the residents. The increase in car parking space was one such demand the residents were insisting. The GCR Working Committee has formed a resident's community on whatsApp media for easy exchange of communication. On the request and 5 O.S.No.959/2024 demand received from the GCR Working Committee on whatsApp media & email communications for considerable length of time, the plaintiff agreed to revise the car parking space plan and by drawing built to suit car parking spaces. Plaintiff before implementing the built to suit plan, share the drawing to all the residents via WhatsApp and Email communication media. The installation of built to suit mechanical car parking space would provide comfortable parking space for all the residents. For installation of the built to suit mechanical car parking space, some of the residents who have opted only single parking space had to be shifted to different location In lower basement. Accordingly, the plaintiff has provided alternative car parking space to those who opted for single car parking space while purchasing the apartment. The defendants have opted for single car parking space as such the defendants are also provided alternative car parking space of equal dimension. At every stage communications were shared via whatsApp group formed by the residents of apartment Including the defendants. In fact, the defendants were in the forefront of discussion regarding the built to suit car parking space. In November, 2022 after designing the mechanical car parking systems it was informed that some of the residents have to relocate to space provided to them.
2d) Plaintiff has sent a mail to the defendants conveying about the live demonstration of the built to suit mechanical car parks and the plaintiff has also conveyed that mechanical car parks shall be provided as demonstrated. The request on built to suit mechanical car parks and the revisions were made known to each and every resident of the said apartment mentioned supra in one or the other means and none of the residents were kept in 6 O.S.No.959/2024 dark about the same. The built to suit car parking space in the upper basement & the lower basement were considered only on the demand of the apartment purchasers and the defendants were also aware of the development. Majority of the residents have agreed and accepted the revised built to suit car parking space plan. Thus, the plaintiff incurred expenditure to provide comfort and convenience to all its residents.
2e) Out of 232 apartments, the defendants herein along with few of their friends are trying to create complication and disharmony for their personal benefit by not accepting the built to suit car parking spaces allotted to them and obstructing the installation of mechanical car parking space. Defendants aware that, the car parking slot which they were allowed to use is being utilized for installation of the mechanical car parking area as per the discussion with the GCR Working Committee of the apartment purchasers to provide built to suit car parks and the defendants are allowed to use alternative car parking space at the same level of the building. The defendants have agreed for the said arrangement. Subsequently, the defendants were requested not to park the vehicle in the space which they were parking earlier and further requested to park their car in the space provided to them. The defendants without having any vested right with them start obstructing the work of installing the mechanical car parking space by parking the car in the place where mechanical car parking is being installed. The car parking space which is marked as A402, in which the Mechanical car parking is being installed, these defendants are obstructing the work by parking the car is morefully identified in Schedule hereunder and hereinafter refer to as SCHEDULE PROPERTY.
7 O.S.No.959/20242f) Defendants have no vested right in respect of the parking space in which the defendants were allowed to park. Even though the apartment number is written on car parking space, the same was done only to assure the allotment of right to the usage of covered car parking space qua other residents and the same was identified only to avoid any confusion amongst the residents with regard to space for parking of their car. Clause VII of the sale Agreement provides for covenants by developer & the purchaser. The purchaser has made certain undertaking with the developer under sub clause 2 of Clause VII. Defendants have acknowledged that the exclusive use of identified car parking space will not create any other right to the car parking space other than right to exclusive use vis-a-vis other residents. Thus, the defendants do not have any enforceable rights against the developer insisting for a particular car parking space and do not have vested right to claim ownership over the car parking space. It is also made clear that the car parking areas are for the benefit of all the purchasers of the apartment. The car parking space Is referred in the document only to prevent disharmony & periodical disputes among the purchasers. The defendants being the purchasers have irrevocably authorized the plaintiff to earmark car parks in mutual interest of one and all to maintain peace, cordiality & harmony among the residents. The defendants further undertaken not to question the authority to earmark the car parking spaces & further desist from making any issue & claims in respect thereto in the Deed of Declaration executed by them. The covenants regarding car parking spaces clearly indicates that the defendants have no vested rights in the arrangement and allotment or re-allotment of car parking space.
8 O.S.No.959/2024In this background even in the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant it is only a reference which has been made with regard to covered car parking space without granting vested rights in the car parking space identified in the sale deed. Even under the Sale Deed, it is made clear that the defendants have no vested right in the car parking space, as only the apartment was conveyed and not any specified covered car parking spaces. The defendants taking undue advantage of the car parking space for exclusive use as against other residents are now obstructing the installation of mechanical car parking space despite alternative space of equal dimension for parking is provided to the Defendants at the same level of the building.
2g) Defendants have undertaken & covenant with the plaintiff that they are only entitled to the use of identified car parking space granted to them. However, such allotment of car parking space will not create any right over the car parking space other than right to use. As mentioned supra the built to suit car parking space plan is made pursuant to the request of several purchasers and out of 232 apartment owners, around 220 owners have already accepted the allotted car parking spaces and have not raised any objection for built to suit car parks. Moreover, the revision of car parking space is done in the best interest and benefit of the residents. On 27.01.2024 when the workers engaged by the Plaintiff started the work for installation of mechanical car parking, the defendants along with their few neighbour residents tried to stop the workers and prevented them from doing the work. The workers being apprehensive of danger to their life and limb, refuse to work unless protection is provided to them. The plaintiff informed the jurisdictional police about the 9 O.S.No.959/2024 illegal act of the defendants. The Police have visited the spot and directed the defendants not to create any untoward Incident, but the police expressed their inability to provide any further help citing that the dispute is civil in nature. The defendants are politically well connected and even the police are not helping the plaintiff.
2h) Defendants were provided with the car parking space marked as A205 with A301 on the left side and A 406 on the right side while facing towards Parking space provided to the defendants. The same was also communicated via email dated 20th February 2023 attaching the parking space allocation list. The plaintiff is installing the built to suit Mechanical car parking space in lower basement marked as A-402 to which A-403 is to the left and A-307 is to the right as per the revised parking plan accepted by the majority of the residents. The allotted car parking space for the defendants is according to the layout of the plan itself & no changes are made in terms of boundaries. There are no changes in the measurement of the car parking space in the revised car parking space allotted. The defendants without having any manner of vested right to ownership over the car parking space, despite providing alternative parking space at the lower basement level of the building, are now obstructing the installation of mechanical car parking space in the parking space at lower basement. The defendants along with their neighboring residents are threatening the workers and tried to stop the workers who are doing the work. The Plaintiff has invested huge amount of money for obtaining the drawings of built to suit car parking space. If the work is not executed, the plaintiff will lose crores of rupees invested in purchasing the materials to construct 10 O.S.No.959/2024 the car parking space and further the other residents would be put to great hardship and inconvenience. If the plaintiff is unable to provide the sufficient car parking space in the building, the reputation of the plaintiff would be at stake which cannot be compensated in terms of money. On the other hand, if the defendants are restrained from obstructing the work, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants as the defendants are provided with parking space of same dimension at the lower basement level of the building. Hence the plaintiff has filed this suit for Injunction.
3. Inspite of receipt of suit summons, the defendants remained absent, hence, they placed exparte.
4. In order to prove the case, the authorised representative of the plaintiff company examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.
5. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials on record.
6. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are entitled for the reliefs claimed ?
2. What order or decree ?
7. My findings on the above issues are as under :-
Point No.1 :- In the affirmative, Point No.2 :- As per the final order;
for the following :-11 O.S.No.959/2024
REASONS
8. POINT No.1:- It is the case of the plaintiff that, he is Developer and defendants are the purchasers of the apartment bearing No.A-205, Block-A, in "G- CORP RESIDENCES"
having super built-up area of 1339 Sq.ft., under the registered Sale Deed dated 07.07.2023. Under the sale deed, the plaintiff has provided car parking spaces as per the standard measurement prescribed by the authorities and building code. The standard space for car parking space is 2.5 M x 5.5 M. The defendants are not having any vested interest in the car parking place, but they are having right to use the same. The allotted car parking space is not the absolute property of the defendants. The defendants have only right to use the space for their car parking. The plaintiff with intent to provide more space for car parking, decided installation of built to suit mechanical car parking. The defendants herein along with few of their friends are trying to create complication and disharmony for their personal benefit and not allowing to install the built to suit car parking space.
9. Inspite of service of summons, the defendants have not appeared before the Court and contested the matter. In this case, the plaintiff is not denying the defendants from parking their car, but the plaintiff is making alternative space for them for parking as the plaintiff is installing built to suit mechanical car parking. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the authorised representative of the plaintiff company examined as PW.1 and got marked authorisation letter, allotment letter, deed of declaration, certified copy of the sale deed and copy of the 12 O.S.No.959/2024 emails, whatsapp message, and layout out plan as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. Accordingly, point No.1 for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
10. POINT NO.2:- In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
The defendants or anybody claiming under them are restrained from obstructing the execution work of built to suit mechanical car parking space designated by the plaintiff as per the approved plan in the suit schedule property.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer-III directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of October 2024) (B.P.Devamane) I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.13 O.S.No.959/2024
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 : Sri.P.Laxmi Narayana.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Authorization letter.
Ex.P.2 : Allotment letter.
Ex.P.3 : Deed of declaration.
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of the sale deed.
Ex.P.5 : Copy of the email sent to the defendant.
Ex.P.6 : Copy of the whatsapp message.
Ex.P.7 : Copy of list.
Ex.P.8 & 9 : 2 revised layout plans.
Ex.P.10 : 65B certificate.
WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON
BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS: NIL
(B.P.Devamane)
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.