Karnataka High Court
Mr. Satish Grampurohit vs Ajmera Infinity Apartment on 21 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.54376 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SATISH GRAMPUROHIT
SON OF MR RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2. MRS CHETANA KOULAGI
WIFE OF MR SATISH GRAMPUROHIT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2
RESIDING AT V222,
CONCORDE SILICON VALLEY
ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE- 1,
BENGALURU - 560100
3. MR HIMADRI LAHIRI
SON OF MR DEBASISH LAHIRI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
4. MRS JAYATI GHOSH
WIFE OF MR HEMADRI LAHIRI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.3 AND 4
ARE RESIDING AT S-09,
VINTAGE ELITE, BLOCK A
BTM 4TH STAGE,
VISHVESHWARAIAH MARG
2
BILEKAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560076
5. MR SUBHRAJIT ROY
SON OF MR ARUN KANTI ROY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
6. MRS SAYANTI DUTTA
WIFE OF MR SUBHRAJIT ROY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.5 AND 6 ARE
RESIDING AT M 1104,
CONCORD MANHATTAN
NEAR WIPRO GATE 14
ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1
BENGALURU - 560100
7. MR DANISH MOHAMMED
SON OF MR ARIF MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
8. MRS NAJLA HASNEN
WIFE OF MR DANISH MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.7 AND 8
ARE RESIDING AT
FLAT NO 1702, BLOCK L
AJMERS INFINITY
DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1
BENGALURU - 560100
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE)
AND
3
1. AJMERA INFINITY APARTMENT
OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
A SOCIETY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
PROVISION OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT 1960
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR,
A BLOCK AJMERA INFINITY
DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1,
BENGALURU - 560100
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
2. AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PLACE OF
BUSINESS AT AJMEERA SUMMIT, 3/D
3RD FLOOR, WARD NO 68,
7TH C MAIN, 3RD CROSS
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT
3RD BLOCK, KORMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560034
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
3. AJMEERA INFINITY APARTMENT
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, AN ASSOCIATION
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
KARNATAKA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT, 1972
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 89/1,
NEELADRI ROAD, DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1,
BENGALURU - 560100
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
4. SRI E VENKATAKRISHNAN
SON OF LATE P S ESWARA IYER
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT # P 1403
AJMERA INFINITY APARTMENTS
4
DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
5. SRI GYAN SHANKER ROY
SON OF S H KAMAL BAS ROY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO D 1602
AJMERA INFINITY APARTMENTS
DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
6. SRI G SELVA KUMAR
SON OF LATE P K GOVINDAN
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.L 1902
AJMERA INFINITY APARTMENTS
DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
7. SRI R M RAMAN
SON OF LATE V RAMACHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.P 801
AJMERA INFINITY APARTMENTS
DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
8. SRI BINOO RAYU
SON OF CHAMAN LAL RAYU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.E 1404
AJMERA INFINITY APARTMENTS
DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
5
9. SRI PRANJIT BORAH
SON OF GOJEN CHANDRA BORAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.B 901
AJMERA INFINITY APARTMENTS
DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
10. SRI GAJENDRA SHARMA
SON OF GAURI SHANKAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.C 501
AJMERA INFINITY APARTMENTS
DODDATHOGUR VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.SNEHA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.4, 5, 7
TO 10;
MS.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF IN O.S.NO.250/2016 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU TO CULMINATING IN THE
ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 10.06.2016 AT ANNEXURE-E
TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
6
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners -plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge on I.A.Nos.2 to 8 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC., The said impleading applications are allowed by the learned Judge, which are under challenge.
2. The present petitioners - plaintiffs have instituted a suit seeking relief of declaration to declare that defendant No.1 has no manner of right, title and interest and enjoyment of common facilities, common areas and amenities contained in schedule A property and sought consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants. The present petitioners claimed that they have purchased Villament C-12 in Ajmera Villows vide sale deed dated 07.01.2016. It is the specific case of the present petitioners - plaintiffs 7 that they have undivided interest in a portion of the suit schedule 'A' property and they are also entitled to have access to the common areas and amenities, which are referred as schedule 'F' properties in the plaint. The petitioners - plaintiffs grievance is that defendant No.1's Association is highhandedly denying them to access to the schedule 'F' property and therefore, the present suit is filed.
3. The present impleading applicants pending suit have come up with impleading applications seeking leave of the Court to come on record and contest the suit. The said applications are allowed by the learned Judge on the ground that the proposed respondent Nos.4 to 10 - defendant Nos.4 to 10 are also having common interest over the usage of common areas and amenities and therefore, their presence is necessary for effective adjudication of controversy between the parties. On these set of 8 reasoning, the learned Judge has allowed all the impleading applications.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners - plaintiffs. Perused the order under challenge.
5. The present petitioners, who claimed to be the flat owners of apartment named as Villament C-12 in Ajmera Villows, have filed the present suit alleging that defendant No.1's Association is not allowing them to use the common area facilities, which are referred as schedule 'F' properties. The petitioners - plaintiffs further specifically contended that they are entitled to enjoy the common areas, which are in custody of defendant No.3. They are also entitled to enjoy other amenities and facilities in item No.2 of the schedule 'F', which are in the custody of defendant No.2. They are also equally entitled to enjoy the other facilities 9 and amenities, which are referred as schedule 'A' properties. It is their case that their right to enjoy the common facilities and amenities emanates from title documents, where the right to have access to these common facilities is clearly reflected in the covenants of the registered documents.
6. The present impleading applicants are disputing right of the plaintiffs to have access to the common areas, which are referred in the schedules. Defendant No.1 disputing reliefs sought in the plaint has also contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The apprehension of the plaintiffs is that if the other flat owners are permitted to come on record in their individual capacity, that would unnecessarily expand the scope of enquiry and therefore, the petitioners contended that their presence is not all necessary for effective adjudication of actual controversy between the parties.
10
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the impleading application. The para Nos.6 and 7 of the affidavit are relevant and the same are culled out as under;
6. Both the defendant 1 and the defendant 3 are association of owners of Ajmera Infinity Apartments, and as per the deed of declaration filed under the provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972, all the common areas including all the amenities, facilities of Ajmera Infinity Apartments have been vested with the defendant 3. The defendant 2 has with mala fide intention, thereafter constructed and sold to various third parties, independent villas and apartments and also many commercial premises illegally constructed on land area already conveyed and in violation of statutory permissions, sanctions and consents. Defendant 2 is not supporting 11 residents of there constructed properties in asserting rights over my apartment's common area, facilities, amenities, which is unlawful. The said use by third parties of a private and independent property, which is solely and exclusively for my use and enjoyment along with other owners of Ajmera Infinity Apartments, shall put the entire property into jeopardy, and as such, I and other owners would suffer irreparable loss.
7. I live in the Ajmera Infinity Apartments, and at the time of sale of the apartment to me, I was categorically informed that the same would be a residential apartment, and I live there with my family. The reliefs sought in the suit, are in such nature that third parties from the neighbouring properties of Ajmera Villows and Ajmera Avenue, which consists of commercial premises as well, will also be allowed to enter upon my apartment property and to make use of the same, 12 which would cause great hardship, and would cause a critical safety threat to the entire apartments, where I live along with my family.
8. If these paragraphs are meticulously examined, this Court would find that the impleading applicants have not set up any independent right over the suit schedule properties. On the contrary, these impleading applicants are virtually supporting defendant No.1 Association. The impleading applicants, who are individual flat owners, are disputing the right of the petitioners to have access to the common facilities. This Court is unable to understand as to how an individual flat owner can dispute the right of the petitioners in the common areas and common facilities. The present suit is instituted against defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 are the Associations while defendant No.2 is the builder. The right of the petitioners has to be 13 decided in the context of the registered documents and also deed of declaration submitted by the Association to the competent authority. Therefore, the impleading applicants have no role to play in the present suit and since impleading applicants are sailing with defendant No.1, this Court is of the view that there is effective representation on behalf individual flat owners. The scope of enquiry cannot be expanded at the instance of the impleading applicants. It is in this background, I would find that the learned Judge erred in allowing the impleading applications. On meticulous examination of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support the impleading applications, I would find that the impleadings applicants are not at all necessary parties to the present suit. Accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER Writ petition is allowed.
14The order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the learned Judge on the impleading applications - I.A.Nos.2 to 8 in O.S.No.250/2016 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set -aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM