Bangalore District Court
Mr. Subramaniam vs Mr. M.R. Raghuram on 29 September, 2018
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2018.
PRESENT: SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A.,LL.B.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.2089/2012
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Mr. Subramaniam,
S/o. Mr. S.A. Muthu Krishnan,
Aged 58 years,
Residing at No.002,
Raghuram Regency, No.44,
MSR Road, Gokula,
Bengaluru -560054
2. Mrs. Vanaja Subramaniam,
W/o. Mr. Subamaniam,
Aged 47 years,
Residing at No.002,
Raghuram Regency, No.44,
MSR Road, Gokula,
Bengaluru -560054.
3. Dr.R.Balaji,
S/o. Mr. P. Ramaiah,
Aged 51 years,
Residing at No.466, 5th Main Road,
2 O.S.No.2089/2012
Sadashivanagar,
Bengaluru -560080.
4. Mr. Venkatesh V.R.
S/o. Mr.Swami Rao,
Aged 51 years,
Residing at No.103,
Raghuram Regency, No.44,
MSR Road, Gokula,
Bengaluru -560054.
5. Dr. S.R. Aravind,
S/o. Mr. S.G. Ramachandra,
Aged 54 years,
residing No.359-360,
19th Main, 1st Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru -560010
6. Ms. Bhavana Sosale,
D/o. Dr.S.R. Aravind,
Aged 25 years,
Residing No.359-360,
19th Main, 1st Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru -560010.
7. Mrs. Aruna Prakash,
W/o. Mr. Narasimha Prakash,
Aged 50 years,
Residing at No.203,
Raghuram Regency, No.44,
MSR Road, Gokula,
Bengaluru -560054
8. Mr .Narasimha Prakash,
s/o. Mr.Narasimha Murthy,
Aged 53 years,
Residing at No.203,
3 O.S.No.2089/2012
Raghuram Regency, No.44,
MSR Road, Gokula,
Bengaluru -560054.
9. Dr. Meenakshi Bharath,
W/o. Mr. B.R. Bharath,
Aged 51 years,
Residing at No.139,
4th Main Road, 13/15th Cross,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru -560003.
10. V. Srinivas Rao,
S/o. Mr. V.P. Rama Rao,
Aged 45 years,
Residing at No.303,
Raghuram Regency, No.44,
MSR Road, Gokula,
Bengaluru -560054
(By Sri. Lakshmish.G, Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Mr. M.R. Raghuram,
S/o. late Mr. M.S. Ramaiah,
Aged 52 years,
Residing at : 'Gokula House',
M.S. Ramaiah Road,
Bengaluru -560054.
2. M/s. Narayan Enterprises,
A Partnership Firm,
Having its office at: No.104,
Brigade Links, No.54,
1st Main Road,
Seshadripuram,
Bengaluru -560020.
Represented by its Partner,
4 O.S.No.2089/2012
Mr. H.D. Narayan Babu,
S/o. Mr. H.N. Dwarakanath,
Aged 51 years.
(D-1 by Sri. Praksh T. Hebbar
D-2 - by Sri .N.A. Advocates)
Date of Institution of the suit : 24/03/2012
Nature of the suit : Permanent Injunction suit
Date of commencement of : 04/03/2015
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment was : 01/10/2018
pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
06 06 07
(SATHISHA L.P.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGEMENT
Plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants for the reliefs of permanent injunction as sought in the prayer columns No.1 to 4, 6, 7 and 8 and such other reliefs.
5 O.S.No.2089/2012
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case is that, they are owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and same is purchased by them from the defendants under the registered sale deeds. The further averment of the plaintiffs is that, defendant No.1 is causing obstruction for peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective apartments along with the amenities and in para 9 the plaintiffs contended that on 31.01.2012 the first defendant made efforts to put up additional constructions over the schedule 'A' property in violation of the sanctioned plan and they further contended in para 10 that on 03.03.2012 the persons authorised by the defendant No.1 tried to put barricades to restrict the plaintiff to access the western portion of the schedule 'A"
property and common facilities existing thereon and illegal attempt of the defendant No.1 is prevented by the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 threatened that he will put up barricade and prevent the plaintiffs by using the common amenities of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the illegal acts, the plaintiffs states that they are before Court, seeking the reliefs as sought for in the plaint.6 O.S.No.2089/2012
3. The defendants No.1 and 2 after the service of summons, have appeared before Court and filed separate written statement put forthing their contentions.
4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement disputing the plaintiffs are owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and further he contended that, the plaintiffs are strangers to him and he disputed the execution of sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiffs and he contends that he is not a party to the sale deeds and the property is not devolved on defendant No.2 in accordance with the joint development agreement and he denies that the plaintiffs have undivided rights and he further contends that defendant No.2 should have obtain no objection certification before executing the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and seeks for dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendant No.2 has filed separate written statement put forthing his defence stating that he has executed the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs for himself and also on behalf of defendant No.1 on the basis of general power of attorney and he further contended that the relief sought in the prayer columns 7 O.S.No.2089/2012 against the defendant No.2 is not maintainable and seeks for dismissal of the suit.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed on 21.12.2013:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have individually purchased the flats in the apartment built by defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the joint owners of schedule-A area (property) and other common amenities as pleaded in the plaint para No.5(a) to (c)?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants through brochures offered to provide various amenities in the A-schedule area (property) to the flats offered to be sold?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1st defendant is a co-owner of A-schedule property, which consists of common amenities provided to them, but he is un-
necessarily obstructing them from peaceful enjoyment of those amenities?
5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1st defendant has been making attempts to put up additional constructions over A-
schedule property as per Annexure-B plan and restricting access of plaintiffs to 8 O.S.No.2089/2012 common facilities as pleaded in para-9 of the plaint?
6. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that there is a Joint Development Agreement with the defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 ha agreed that at the time of sale of each flat, he shall take no objection certificate from him (1st defendant), but the plaintiffs without verifying the terms of J.D.A, have purchased the flats and thereby no legal title was passed on to them by virtue of registered sale deed since no permission was obtained by defendant No.2 before execution of sale deed?
7. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that to hold exclusive right over A-1, 'A' area, he has purchased 10 flats from the 2nd defendant by paying Rs.1.2 Crores and has got exclusive right over Area-A and the plaintiffs have no right over it in any manner as pleaded in their plaint?
8. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 have colluded with each other and created the sale deeds in an unlawful manner to thwart the terms and conditions of Joint Development Agreement entered into between himself and the 2nd defendant as pleaded in para-7 of the written statement?
9. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the defendant No.2 has the right only on the Area-2 and Area-B to deal with the flats in terms of Joint Development Agreement?
9 O.S.No.2089/2012
10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the 1st defendant as prayed in the relief Nos. 1 to 4 and 6?
11. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant No.2 as pleaded in prayer No.5 of the plaint?
12. What order or decree?
7. In order to prove the case, among the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.4 is examined himself and on behalf of other plaintiffs as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to P.19 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, first defendant is examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 to D.4 are marked
8. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
9. My finding on the above issues are :-
Issue No.1: In the positive Issue No.2: In the positive Issue No.3: In the positive Issue No.4: In the positive Issue No.5: In the positive Issue No.6: In the negative Issue No.7: In the negative Issue No.8: In the negative 10 O.S.No.2089/2012 Issue No.9: In the negative Issue No.10: In the positive Issue No.11: Deleted Issue No.12: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1:- So far as first issue is concerned, the burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove that they have individually purchased the flats in the apartment built by defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit schedule property. In order to prove the issues, the plaintiffs by examining P.W.1 have produced the sale deeds at Exs.P.2 to P.8. In all the sale deeds paramateria are the same except the flat number and the purchaser. Ex.P.2 is with respect to plaintiff No.1 and 2, Ex.P.3 is with respect to plaintiff No.3, Ex.P.4 is with respect to plaintiff No.4, Ex.P.5 is with respect to plaintiffs No.5 and 6, Ex.P.6 is with respect to plaintiffs No.7 and 8, Ex.P.7 is with respect to plaintiff No.9 and Ex.P.8 with respect to plaintiff No.10. The documents Ex.P.10 to P.15 and other documents show that apartments have been transferred in the name of the plaintiffs. 11 O.S.No.2089/2012
11. It is undisputed fact that, defendant No.1 was the owner of the property bearing Municipal No.44, PID No.2-226-44, situated at M.S. Ramaiah Road, Gokula, Bengaluru measuring 220 feet x 123 feet, which he acquired under the family partition. After the partition, he being the owner has entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the defendant No.2, which is also not disputed by defendant No.1 and he only has produced the same as per Ex.D.2. So far as joint development agreement is concerned, in the joint development agreement it was agreed between defendant No.1 and 2 that 60% and 40% shares were divided among them and later on same was modified under a rectification deed dated 24.06.2008, wherein the first defendant has share of 74.72% of super built up area and second party has share of 25.28% of super built up area and defendant No.1 has also executed GPA in favour of defendant No.2 to sell the flats fallen to the share of defendant No.2 under the joint development agreement. In view of the said facts, defendant No.2 has executed the registered sale deeds Ex.P.2 to P.8 in favour of the plaintiffs as owner of the apartment and also GPA holder of defendant No.1.
12 O.S.No.2089/2012
12. On appreciation of the records, it is clear that the plaintiffs have purchased the flats as claimed in the suit from defendants No.1 and 2. So, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved issue No.1 that they have individually purchased the flats as per the respective sale deeds. Hence issue No.1 is held in the 'positive'.
13. Issue No.2:- So far as issue No.2 is concerned, it is very much relevant to know the law in this regard, since the property dispute involved in this case is covered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972. It is very pertinent to note some provisions of the Act, which are relevant, are reproduced below:-
3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-
(a) "Apartment" means a part of the property intended for any type of independent use, including one or more rooms or enclosed spaces located on one or more floors (or part or parts thereof) in a building, intended to be used for residential purposes and with a direct exit to a 13 O.S.No.2089/2012 public street, road or highway or to a common area leading to such street, road or highway;
(b) "Apartment Owner" means the person or persons owning an apartment and an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities in the percentage specified and established in the Declaration;
The very important is 3(f):
(f) "Common areas and facilities", unless otherwise provided in the Declaration or lawful amendments thereto, means.-
(1) the land on which the building is located;
(2) the foundations, columns, girders, beams, supports, main walls, roofs, halls, corridors, lobbies, stairs, stair-ways, fire-escapes, entrances and exits of the building;
(3) the basements, cellars, yards, gardens, parking areas and storage spaces;
(4) the premises for the lodging of janitors or persons employed for the management of the property;
(5) installations of central services, such as power, light, gas, hot and cold water, heating, refrigeration, air-conditioning and incinerating;14 O.S.No.2089/2012
(6) the elevators, tanks, pumps, motors, fans, compressors, ducts and in general all apparatus and installations existing for common use;
(7) such community and commercial facilities asmay be provided for in the Declaration, and (8) all other parts of the property necessary or convenient to its existence, maintenance and safety, or normally in common use;."
Section 6 of the Act is reproduced below:
6. Common areas and facilities.- (1) Each apartment owner shall be entitled to an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities in the percentage expressed in the Declaration. Such percentage shall be computed by taking as a basis the value of the apartment in relation to the value of the property; and such percentage shall reflect limited common areas and facilities.
(2) The percentage of the undivided interest of each apartment owner in the common areas and facilities as expressed in the Declaration shall have a permanent character, and shall not be altered without the consent of all of the apartment owners expressed in an amended Declaration duly executed and registered as provided in this Act. The percentage of the undivided interest in the common areas and facilities shall not be separated from the apartment to which it appertains, and shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with the apartment even though such interest is not expressly mentioned in the conveyance or other instrument.
(3) The common areas and facilities shall remain undivided, and no apartment owner or any other person shall bring any action for partition or 15 O.S.No.2089/2012 division of any part thereof, unless the property has been removed from the provisions of this Act as provided in Sections 14 and 22. Any covenant to the contrary shall be null and void.
(4) Each apartment owner may use the common areas and facilities in accordance with the purpose for which they are intended without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other apartment owners.
(5) The necessary work of maintenance, repair and replacement of the common areas and facilities and the making of any additions or improvements thereto shall be carried out only as provided herein and in the bye-laws.
(6) The Association of Apartment Owners shall have the irrevocable right, to b e exercised by the Manager or Board of Managers, to have access to each apartment from time to time during reasonable hours as may be necessary for the maintenance, repair and replacement of any of the common areas and facilities therein or accessible there from, or fro making emergency repairs therein necessary to prevent damage to the common areas and facilities or to another apartment or apartments."
14. So, on appreciation of the documentary evidence before Court and also law, it is very much clear that plaintiffs are joint owners of schedule A area and other common amenities as pleaded in para 5(a) to (c) of the plaint, because, in the sale deeds, the 'A' schedule property of the sale deed is property measuring 220 ft. x 16 O.S.No.2089/2012 123 ft. of B.M.P. No.44, PID No.2-226-44, situated at M.S. Ramaiah Road, Gokula, Bengaluru, which is the subject matter of the joint development agreement. Issue No.2 is with respect to common amenities. In the schedule 'B' of the sale deeds, it is specifically mentioned as "an undivided share, right, title and interest in the land being 3.25% of the total extent in the Schedule 'A' Property, equivalent to 879.85 Square Feet." In the sale deeds Schedule-C is apartment and very important is schedule 'D', which reads as under:
SCHEDULE 'D' ABOVE REFERRED TO:
(Rights of purchasers in the project viz., "NE- RAGHURAM REGENCY" situated at Site No.44, M.S. Ramaiah Road, Gokula, Bengaluru-56 054)
1. Full right and liberty to the PURCHASERS and all persons authorised or permitted by the PURCHASERS ( in common with all other persons similarly entitled, permitted or authorised) at all times by day or night and for all purposes to go, pass and re-pass the staircase and the passage inside the said building save in the built-up area thereof belonging / in occupation of the Apartment Owners as well as the outside of the said building constructed on the Schedule 'A' Property and the Apartment/s described in the Schedule 'B' hereto.17 O.S.No.2089/2012
2. Full right and liberty to the persons referred to supra in common with all other persons with or without motor car or other permitted vehicles at all times, day and night, and for all purposes to go pass and re-pass over the land appurtenant to the said building constructed on the Schedule 'B' Property.
3. The right to subjacent and lateral support and lateral support and shelter and protection from the other parts of the said building and from the side and roof thereof.
4. The right to uninterrupted usage of running water and electricity from and to the said building and to the Schedule 'C' apartment through the sewers, drain and water courses, cables, pipes and wires which now are, or at any time hereafter be laid in, under or passing through the said building or any part thereof, subject to the Municipal and other laws governing supply of electricity and water.
5. Right to passage to the PURCHASERS and their/its agents or workmen to the other parts of the said building ad also to the water tanks for cleaning, repairing or maintaining the same at all reasonable times after taking consent from the person appointed by majority of owners of Apartments constructed on the Schedule 'A' and 'B' Properties.
6. Right to lay cable or wires through common walls or passage for radio, television, telephone and other such installations, however, having due regard to the similar rights of other PURCHASERS and the municipal and other laws as applicable.
7. Subject to payment for common facilities and services, the right to enjoy the common services, 18 O.S.No.2089/2012 facilities and recreation areas provided in the said Project "NE- RAGHURAM REGENCY".
In Clause 1 to 7, it is mentioned that that the persons i.e., purchasers are entitled for all the common amenities. In Section 6 of the Act also, it is clear that plaintiffs are entitled for common amenities. So on appreciation of sale deeds and Section 6 of the Act, it is clear that plaintiffs have proved issue No.2. Hence this issue is held in the 'positive'.
15. Issue No.3:- The plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.1, which brochure. So on perusal of the same, it is clear that defendants No.1 and 2 have offered the amenities at the time of sale. Even otherwise, as per the Act also, the plaintiffs are entitled for common amenities, being the owners of the undivided interest. Hence, issue No.3 is held in the 'positive'.
16. Issue No.4:- The first defendant is the owner of the property and he has entered into joint development agreement with defendant No.2. Sharing ratio is as per the joint development agreement, and after that as per the rectification deed. So the 19 O.S.No.2089/2012 defendant No.1 being the co-owner is not entitled to exercise his right over the undivided interest over the suit schedule property, because the Act itself provides U/Sec.6, that no person shall exercise right to make changes in the buildings and no person shall or is entitled to exercise right to prevent the right of other owners. So after the joint development agreement, defendant No.1 has also similar liability and he should not restrain others from using common amenities , as per the Act itself and defendant No.1 has specifically taken contention that he has right over the property. This type of assertion itself proves that, he is trying to interfere in the common amenities and also rights of the plaintiffs. Hence this issue is held in the affirmative'.
15. Issue No.5:- The first defendant has taken a definite stand that, he has exclusive right over his area and his definite stand is that plaintiffs have some other access road, shows that he is trying to or restraining the plaintiffs from using the common facilities, as pleaded in para-9 of the plaint. Hence this issue is held in the 'affirmative'.
20 O.S.No.2089/2012
16. Issue No.6:- It is admitted fact that, defendants No.1 and 2 have entered into joint development agreement and the agreement is between defendants No.1 and 2. The contention taken up by the defendant No.1 is that, no title is passed on to the plaintiffs, as defendant No.2 has not obtained previous permission from defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed. But the contention of the defendant No.1 cannot be accepted, for the reason, he has not disputed that there is joint development agreement and it is also not his case that he has not executed general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 on the basis of the joint development agreement and general power of attorney executed by defendant No.1 in his favour, has executed the sale deeds. It is not challenged by defendant No.1 so far, and he has not taken any legal action against defendant No.2 for executing the sale deeds without seeking any permission of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has approved the act of the defendant No.2 through his conduct. Hence the contention of defendant No.1 that, no title is passed on to the plaintiffs, cannot be accepted. Hence issue No.6 is answered in the 'negative'.
21 O.S.No.2089/2012
17. Issue No.7:- Though defendant No.1 has pleaded that he purchased 10 flats from second defendant, but he has ot produced any material before Court for having purchased the same. The documents produced by him are only joint development agreement, and also general power of attorney and rectification deed. Except these documents, he has not produced any other records. But however, even though he has purchased any property, he cannot exercise his individual right over the common amenities to the property of the joint development agreement, as per the Act itself. Hence this issue is held in the 'negative'.
18. Issue No.8:- Defendant No.1 says that there is collusion between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. But it is to be noted that defendant No.2 has executed the sale deeds as GPA holder of defendant No.1 and also on behalf of defendant No.1. Under the joint development agreement, the ratio of sharing of the property is 60% and 40% and later on it is modified as per Ex.D.4. It is very pertinent to note that, defendant No.1 has not taken any action against defendant No.2, for having executing the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. If there is a collusion or whatever, the 22 O.S.No.2089/2012 defendant No.1 should have necessarily taken legal action either by canceling the GPA or challenging the sale deeds. Under such circumstances, the allegation of the defendant No.1 that there is collusion between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 cannot be accepted. Hence it is held in the 'negative'.
19. Issue No.9:- Under the joint development agreement - Ex.D.2, the share of the parties, i.e., owner and promoter is fixed and the same is rectified under Ex.D.4. Though the sharing is modified, other terms and conditions are remained same. But anyhow, the promoter has to sell the share fallen to his share and owner has to sell the share fallen to his share, but it does not mean that both are exclusive owners to the common amenities fallen to their share, because, the entire property is approved under a single plan and hence both of them cannot exercise their exclusive right over the common amenities. Hence issue No.9 is answered in the 'negative' so far as common amenities are concerned.
20. Issue No.10:- The prayer No.1 is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1, his family members, agents, henchmen, servants, security guards, workers or any other 23 O.S.No.2089/2012 persons claiming through or under him from barricading or in any manner whatsoever preventing/obstructing the plaintiffs from accessing the Schedule 'A' property in its entirety, prayer No.2 is with regard to blocking the plaintiffs' access to the schedule 'A' property from the road situated on the western boundary/periphery of schedule 'A' property, prayer No.3 is with regard to preventing the plaintiffs from entering or using the club house, gym, lift, 24 hour generator back up, garden and all other common amenities, areas and facilities made available over Schedule 'A" property, prayer No.4 is with regard to putting up any additional or unauthorised construction over Schedule 'A" property in violation of Annexure B sanctioned plan and prayer No.6 is with regard to restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
21. In the sale deed schedule D clause shows the common amenities to the purchaser, which is extracted below:
SCHEDULE 'D' ABOVE REFERRED TO:
(Rights of purchasers in the project viz., "NE- RAGHURAM REGENCY" situated at Site No.44, M.S. Ramaiah Road, Gokula, Bengaluru-56 054) 24 O.S.No.2089/2012
1. Full right and liberty to the PURCHASERS and all persons authorised or permitted by the PURCHASERS ( in common with all other persons similarly entitled, permitted or authorised) at all times by day or night and for all purposes to go, pass and re-pass the staircase and the passage inside the said building save in the built-up area thereof belonging / in occupation of the Apartment Owners as well as the outside of the said building constructed on the Schedule 'A' Property and the Apartment/s described in the Schedule 'B' hereto.
2. Full right and liberty to the persons referred to supra in common with all other persons with or without motor car or other permitted vehicles at all times, day and night, and for all purposes to go pass and re-pass over the land appurtenant to the said building constructed on the Schedule 'B' Property.
3. The right to subjacent and lateral support and lateral support and shelter and protection from the other parts of the said building and from the side and roof thereof.
4. The right to uninterrupted usage of running water and electricity from and to the said building and to the Schedule 'C' apartment through the sewers, drain and water courses, cables, pipes and wires which now are, or at any time hereafter be laid in, under or passing through the said building or any part thereof, subject to the Municipal and other laws governing supply of electricity and water.
5. Right to passage to the PURCHASERS and their/its agents or workmen to the other parts of the said building ad also to the water tanks for cleaning, repairing or maintaining the same at all 25 O.S.No.2089/2012 reasonable times after taking consent from the person appointed by majority of owners of Apartments constructed on the Schedule 'A' and 'B' Properties.
6. Right to lay cable or wires through common walls or passage for radio, television, telephone and other such installations, however, having due regard to the similar rights of other PURCHASERS and the municipal and other laws as applicable.
7. Subject to payment for common facilities and services, the right to enjoy the common services, facilities and recreation areas provided in the said Project "NE- RAGHURAM REGENCY".
In view of the above, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the relief Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Hence, I answer this issue in the 'affirmative'.
22. Issue No.12:- In view of my findings on the above issues and for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
O RDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part.
The defendant No.1, his family members, agents, henchmen, servants, security guards, workers or any other persons claiming through or under him are restrained by permanent injunction from barricading or in 26 O.S.No.2089/2012 any manner whatsoever preventing/obstructing the plaintiffs from accessing the Schedule 'A' property in its entirety.
The defendant No.1, his family members, agents, henchmen, servants, security guards, workers or any other persons claiming through or under him are restrained by permanent injunction from blocking plaintiffs' access to the schedule 'A" property from the road situated on western boundary/periphery of schedule 'A' property.
The defendant No.1, his family members, agents, henchmen, servants, security guards, workers or any other persons claiming through or under him are restrained by permanent injunction from restricting or in any manner whatsoever preventing the plaintiffs from entering or using the club house, gym, lift, 24 hour generator back up, garden an all other common amenities, areas and facilities made available over schedule 'A' property.
The defendant No.1, his family members, agents, henchmen, servants, security guards, workers or any other persons claiming through or under him are restrained by permanent injunction from putting up any 27 O.S.No.2089/2012 additional or unauthorised construction over schedule 'A' property in violation of Annexure B sanctioned plan.
The defendant No.1, his family members, agents, henchmen, servants, security guards, workers or any other persons claiming through or under him are restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties.
No order as to costs.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 1st day of October, 2018.) (SATHISHA L.P.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property bearing BMP No.44, PID No.2-226-44, situated at M.S.Ramaiah Road, Gokula, Bengaluru - 560 054, (Earlier at Poornapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk Bengaluru), Yeshawanthpura Range, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Ward 28 O.S.No.2089/2012 No.2, Ward Name - Jalahalli, measuring East to West: 220 ft and North to South: 123 ft., in all totally measuring 27,060 Square feet and bounded on the:
East by : Road West by : Road North by : Private property South by : Private property
and consisting of compound wall and having all the access, ingress and egress to and from all the structures thereon ,and along with all the liberties, privileges and rights to use and enjoy all the common facilities therein;
SCHEDULE 'B-1' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of residential apartment unit, bearing No.002, situated in the ground floor in 'NE-Raghuram Regency" constructed on the Schedule 'A' property, with a saleable super built up area of 1862 Square Feet, containing three bedroom together with all common areas attributable thereto and other areas of common use with marble/granite flooring, RCC roof, Teak Wood entrance doors and teak wood windows, and one covered car parking space, in the stilt floor along with undivided share of 3.25% of schedule A property, equivalent to 879.85 Sq.ft.29 O.S.No.2089/2012
SCHEDULE 'B-2' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of residential apartment unit, bearing No.102, situated in the first floor in 'NE-Raghuram Regency" constructed on the Schedule 'A' property, with a saleable super built up area of 1890 Square Feet, containing three bedroom together with all common areas attributable thereto and other areas of common use with marble/granite flooring, RCC roof, Teak Wood entrance doors and teak wood windows, and one covered car parking space, in the stilt floor along with undivided share of 3.30% of schedule A property, equivalent to 893.08 Sq.ft.
SCHEDULE 'B-3' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of residential apartment unit, bearing No.103, situated in the first floor in 'NE-Raghuram Regency" constructed on the Schedule 'A' property, with a saleable super built up area of 1692 Square Feet, containing three bedroom together with all common areas attributable thereto and other areas of common use with marble/granite flooring, RCC roof, Teak Wood entrance doors and teak wood windows, and one covered car parking space, in the stilt floor along with undivided share of 2.95% of schedule A property, equivalent to 799.52 Sq.ft.30 O.S.No.2089/2012
SCHEDULE 'B-4' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of residential apartment unit, bearing No.202, situated in the first floor in 'NE-Raghuram Regency" constructed on the Schedule 'A' property, with a saleable super built up area of 1942 Square Feet, containing three bedroom together with all common areas attributable thereto and other areas of common use with marble/granite flooring, RCC roof, Teak Wood entrance doors and teak wood windows, and one covered car parking space, in the stilt floor along with undivided share of 3.39% of schedule A property, equivalent to 917.66 Sq.ft.
SCHEDULE 'B-5' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of residential apartment unit, bearing No.203, situated in the second floor in 'NE-Raghuram Regency" constructed on the Schedule 'A' property, with a saleable super built up area of 1689 Square Feet, containing three bedroom together with all common areas attributable thereto and other areas of common use with marble/granite flooring, RCC roof, Teak Wood entrance doors and teak wood windows, and one covered car parking space, in the stilt floor along with undivided share of 2.95% of schedule A property, equivalent to 798.11 Sq.ft.31 O.S.No.2089/2012
SCHEDULE 'B-6' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of residential apartment unit, bearing No.302, situated in the third floor in 'NE-Raghuram Regency" constructed on the Schedule 'A' property, with a saleable super built up area of 1942 Square Feet, containing three bedroom together with all common areas attributable thereto and other areas of common use with marble/granite flooring, RCC roof, Teak Wood entrance doors and teak wood windows, and one covered car parking space, in the stilt floor along with undivided share of 3.39% of schedule A property, equivalent to 917.66 Sq.ft.
SCHEDULE 'B-7' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of residential apartment unit, bearing No.303, situated in the third floor in 'NE-Raghuram Regency" constructed on the Schedule 'A' property, with a saleable super built up area of 1689 Square Feet, containing three bedroom together with all common areas attributable thereto and other areas of common use with marble/granite flooring, RCC roof, Teak Wood entrance doors and teak wood windows, and one covered car parking space, in the stilt floor along with undivided share of 2.95% of schedule A property, equivalent to 798.11 Sq.ft.32 O.S.No.2089/2012
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: Mr. V.R.Venkatesh
(b) Defendant's side :
D.W.1: Mr. M.R.Raghuram
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1 Brochure xerox copy of sanction
plan
Ex.P.2 to Certified copy of 7 sale deeds
P.8
Ex.P.9 to Khatha certificate/uttarapatra
P.15 ( 7 in number)
Ex.P.16 Occupancy certificate
Ex.P.17 Receipt
Ex.P.18 Commencement certificate
Ex.P.19 Original sanction plan
(b) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1 Original key plan
Ex.D.2 Certified copy joint development
agreement
Ex.D.3 GPA
Ex.D.4 Original rectification deed
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.