Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Further contends that Sena Vihar Housing Co- operative Society was converted into defendant association and the Rules and Regulations (Bye-Laws) came to be framed by the members/owners of the House/Plot and Apartments in conjunction with the AWHO Rules as per Master Brochure, 1987. In the Bye-law No.1(n) of chapter 2, all the common areas and facilities situated in entire Sena Vihar Complex are the joint properties managed, administered and maintained by the defendant association and as per Bye-law No.34 of chapter 8, it is affirmed that no encroachments is permitted on common areas and all encroachment shall be evicted at the risk and expenses of the offender without any notice etc. Hence, the area behind plaintiffs' plot No.1 being a common area and they do not have or cannot claim to have exclusive right over the use of such common area and it is only the defendant association on behalf of all members, having right to maintain such areas for the common good of all residents which have been empowered under the Master Brochure, 1987. The certificate of handing over common facilities issued by AWHO vide Annexure XA is in addition to the rights, powers and responsibilities vested in the defendant under Master Brochure, 1987 and not restricted to the maintenance of the aforementioned services only as alleged by plaintiffs. It is admitted that defendant's Association comprises of 364 flat owners and 71 independent House Owners. The plot owners are proportionately represented on the management committee of defendant and 2 members out of 9 members are mandated out of which one is an incumbent vice president. The apartment owners are not disturbing the peace of house owners in any way and the colony is treated in letter and spirit as one whole single complex and no hostile interests have developed between owners of apartments and houses as claimed by the plaintiffs. It is true that erstwhile society filed Writ Petition No.28624/2003 in Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking direction to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to remove all encroachments on the public streets and common areas of the society which came to be treated as a public interest litigation and dismissed the above Writ Petition by observing that the same involved questions of facts which cannot be looked into in a PIL and further made an observation that the respondent authorities will take action if there was any encroachment as made out in the Writ Petition. The AWHO has issued authority letter to it by authorizing further action to ensure removal of the encroachments made by the owners of plots and dwelling units and the defendant is in the process of initiating appropriate legal action in this regard at the earliest. The defendant neither intended nor constructed a permanent jogging/walking track in the suit schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs and further as free uninterrupted and unrestricted access into the common areas and more particularly the common areas behind plot Nos.1,2 and 3 including the suit schedule property upto the southern boundary wall is imperative for the residents of the colony, defendant association and its maintenance staff and the personnel of the civil services such as BESCOM, BWSSB and Fire Tenders, Fire Fighting Personnel as these common areas are vital and indispensable for carrying on maintenance of the main electrical feeder line running into the Housing Colony which is laid parallel to the southern boundary wall behind plot Nos.1 to 3 and due to haphazard planting of Mango and Coconut tress which interfere with maintenance of the feeder lines and many a times the maintenance personnel of the defendant in addition to BESCOM staff had to trim the trees which would otherwise touch and interfere with the cable and thereby become cause for electricity shutdown for the entire colony. Further, an 8" BWSSB pipeline which is the mainstay of water supply to the Housing Colony also runs through this area which also requires regular supervision, maintenance by BWSSB Staff as well as defendant's maintenance personnel. Hence, the including the suit schedule property are being used as a link road/passage by the defendant's maintenance staff who are further required to maintain the rain water harvesting pits made in the drains which runs parallel to the 40 feet road and also 20 feet road and for movement of the waste to the garbage dump situated in the south eastern boundary. That apart this area is vital for purposes of security patrolling along the boundary walls and also for providing free and easy access to the Fire Tenders and Fire fighting personnel in an emergency and as majority of the residents of the Housing colony being senior citizens need more safe walking space which is not available outside as well as inside the Housing Colony in view of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike making the internal roads as public roads and they have been using this common areas in which the suit schedule property is portion thereof as a walking trail ever since the Housing complex came into existence. On many occasions earlier, the plaintiffs have been very non co- operative, harsh, nursed ill will for no good and cogent reasons upon the defendant's office bearers and maintenance staff by obstructing even their bonafide acts of trimming the leaves, twigs of the trees nearer to the electricity feeder line which cause obstruction during emergencies so as to avoid any consequential electricity shut down to the entire colony and further the first plaintiff resorted to even lodge false and frivolous complaints against defendant's office bearers and others. One such complaint is submitted by plaintiff No.1 to the defendant and the same is marked to the jurisdictional police and other authorities on 03/07/2010. All the members of the defendant including the house/plot owners and these plaintiffs and not only the apartment owners took part in the said meeting and they have been collectively parties to the resolutions passed thereof. However, it was agreed in principle that a 200 feet long passage from the south western corner to the children's park south of apartment L Block will ensure a proper passage all along the periphery without obstruction to any members without causing any damage to the existing greenery. As the plaintiffs were never aggrieved about the resolutions of meeting supra and having not chosen to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, they cannot nurse a grouse about the same after long lapse of time at this juncture. The plaintiffs and other independent owners had submitted representations to the defendant on 10/10/2011 and 17/10/2011 are admitted and upon considering the merits of their alleged grievances, the same came to be rejected by the defendant's letter on 28/11/2011 keeping in mind the larger interest of the entire housing colony and by ignoring the selfish interest of a few plot owners including plaintiffs. On 08/12/2011 the members of defendant alongwith their maintenance staff including gardeners were removing the weeds and stones present in the walking path passing through the common areas behind plot Nos.1 to 3 including the suit schedule property and at that time, the owners and family embers of some of the independent plots including these plaintiffs who nursed ill will and disharmony towards the defendant and the majority of its members as they had thwarted their illegal and unlawful attempts to encroach upon the common areas behind their plots and being not able to successfully implement their malafide desire, they resorted to lodge false, baseless and frivolous complaints before the police which do not befit or uphold the dignity and impeccable characters, military personnel are known for. No vandalism and criminal force was used by the defendant or its members or staff against plaintiff or other plot owners. After learning about the true facts, the jurisdictional police have refrained from registering any cases and on the contrary advised the plaintiffs and other frivolous plot owners to live in harmony with the other residents of the colony. Merely on the pretext that the plot No.1 supra faced certain landmarks namely the plot No.30 on the northern side and boundary wall facing towards the southern side, it does not mean and infer that the 18 feet road and adjacent borewell No.3 and common areas lying in between the plot No.1 and the aforementioned landmarks are allegedly sold to the plaintiffs under their sale deed and it is only an act of greediness coupled with malafide intention on the part of the plaintiffs who nurse a plan to make encroachments upon the said areas and they are making deliberate attempt to claim the same as if they are the owners even without there being an a title documents to that effect. The suit schedule property is both used as a passage/link road by the defendant and its staff for maintenance of several amenities mentioned supra and as a walking trail by the residents of the colony who are mainly senior citizens and ex-military personnel. The photos produced by the plaintiff themselves have made encroachments on the northern and western side of their plot No.1 by making a private garden and even put up a swing upon the 18 feet road and they have erected a metal stair case to first floor beyond their plot's outer wall on the western side. The sites in the colony were allotted by the draw of lots in the year 1990 and few were considered as 'preferential plots' because they are corner plots with an extra open side and the extra cost of such preferential sites is only because of this benefit of location and not to bestow any special rights over areas outside their plots. The size of the plot allotted to plaintiffs is 40 feet x 45 feet only and the same sized plots are allotted to all plot owners whether it is preferential or not. Further contends that not only the owners of the independent houses, most of its members whether it is house/plot owners or apartment owners are also retired military personnels residing with their spouses and other family members and they are also senior citizens in the evening of their life and their right to use the common areas including the walking trail/passage through suit schedule property for their daily walk cannot be deprived by the plaintiffs or any other frivolous plot owners and at no point of time, there was any invasion of privacy or frivolous plot owners and at no point of time, there was any invasion of privacy or security of the independent houses is done by either defendant's members living in apartments may repeat vandalism and criminal force against the independent house owners etc., is only a figment of imagination of the plaintiffs based on surmises and conjectures and plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same.

11. Per contra, it is the specific case of the defendant that defendant is welfare association constituted by the owners of the association of independent houses registered under the Karnataka Societies act, 1860. The relinquishment deed dated 18/04/1994 came to be executed by AWHO in favour of Bangalore Development Authority by relinquishing the internal roads, culverts and drains parallel to the road mentioned in detail in clause A of the schedule, 11 totlots mentioned in B of the schedule and children park between building blocs C and F as mentioned in clause C of the schedule of the relinquishment deed for their development and maintenance. The remaining land situated in Sena Vihar Complex i.e., schedule property of sale deed made in favour of AWHO is still jointly owned by all members of the society. The exclusive right of each plot owner is restricted to the area of the each plot allotted to him. The Sena Vihar Housing Co-operative society was converted into defendant association and the rules and regulations came to be framed by the members of the plot and apartments with the AWHO rules as per Master Brochure, 1987. The area behind plaintiffs' plot Nos.1 being a common area and they do not have or cannot claim to have exclusive right over the use of such common area and it is only the defendant association on behalf of all members having right to maintain such areas for the common good of all the residents which have been empowered under the Master Brochure, 1987, the Bye-Laws and AWHO letters. The defendant association comprises of 364 flat owners and 71 independent house owners. The plot owners are proportionately represented on the management committee of defendant and 2 members out of 9 members are mandated out of which one is an incumbent vice president. The apartment owners are not disturbing the peace of house owners in any way and the Housing colony is treated in letter and spirit as one whole single complex and no hostile interests have developed between owners of the apartments and houses as claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant neither intended nor constructed a permanent jogging/walking track in the suit schedule property as alleged by the plaintiffs and further as free uninterrupted and unrestricted access into the common areas and more particularly the common areas behind plot Nos.1,2 and 3 including the suit schedule property upto the southern boundary wall is imperative for the residents of the colony, defendant association and its maintenance staff and the personnel of civil services such as BESVOM, BWSSB and Fire Tenders, Fire Fighting personnel as these common areas are vital and indispensable for carrying on maintenance of the main electrical feeder line running into the Housing colony which is laid parallel to the southern boundary wall behind plot Nos.1 to 3 and due haphazard plating of Mango and coconut trees which interfere with maintenance of the feeder lines and many a times the maintenance personnel of the defendant in addition to the BESCOM staff had to trim the trees which would otherwise touch and interfere with the cable and thereby come cause for electricity shutdown for the entire colony. Further, an 8" BWSSB pipeline which is the mainstay of water supply to the Housing colony also runs through this area which also requires regular supervision, maintenance by BWSSB staff as well as defendant maintenance personnel. The common areas behind plot Nos.1 to 3 including the suit schedule property are being used as a link road/passage by the defendant's maintenance staff who are further required to maintain the rain water harvesting pits made in the drains which runs parallel to the 40 feet road and also 20 feet road and for movement of the waste to the garbage dump situated in the south eastern boundary. That apart this area is vital for purposes of security patrolling along the boundary walls and also for providing free and easy access to the Fire Tenders and Fire Fighting personnel in an emergency and as majority of the residents of the Housing colony being senior citizens need more safe walking space which is not available outside as well as inside the Housing Colony in view of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike making the internal roads as public road and they have been using this common areas in which the suit schedule property is portion thererof as a walking trail ever since the Housing complex came into existence. The plaintiffs were never aggrieved abut the resolutions of meeting spra. On 08/12/2011, the members of the defendant alongwith their maintenance staff including gardeners were removing the weeds and stones present in the walking path passing through the common areas behind plot Nos.1 to 3 including the suit schedule property and at that time, the owners and the family members of some of the independent plots including these plaintiffs who have nursed ill will and disharmony towards the defendant and the majority of its members as they had thwarted their illegal and unlawful attempts to encroach upon the common areas behind their plots and being not able to successfully implement their malafide desire, they resorted to lodge false, baseless and frivolous complaints before the police which do not befit or uphold the dignity and impeccable characters. The said Sena Vihar Housing colon comes within the administration of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The suit schedule property is used as a passage/link road by the defendant and its staff for maintenance of several amenities and as a walking trail by the residents of the colony who are mainly senior citizens and ex-military personnel. The sites in the colony were allotted by draw of lots in the year 1990 and few were considered as 'preferential plots because they are corner plots with an extra open side and the extra cost of such preferential sites is only because of this benefit of location and not to bestow any special rights over areas outside their plots. The size of the plots allotted to plaintiffs is 40x 45' only and the same sized plots are allotted to all other plot owners whether it is preferential or not. The defendants had only marked a walking path measuring a mere 4 feet in width in the common area behind house nos.1,2,3,21 and 22 in which the suit schedule property is portion thereof and covered the surface with a thin layer of white ash/lime to facilitate easy recognition of the pathway by the residents to prevent them from straying outside damaging the plants and fall into ditches and potholes besides the trail. In terms of Byelaw 2.57 of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike building bye-laws, an 'open space' means an area left open to the sky. Consequent o marking of walking path, the said area is still open to the sky and remains an open space/area. There is absolutely no change of land use as alleged. They are connected by an access of not less than 3.5 metes in width, if they are not approachable directly from the existing roads. As per the norms for approval of group housing plan, 25% of the total area was required to be reserved by CA, parks and open spaces, subject to a minimum of 15% for parks and open spaces, and the area reserved for parks and open spaces, CA and roads was to be handedover free of cost to the Bangalore Development Authority through relinquishment deed before issue of work order. In terms of the said norms, the promoter AWHO was required to relinquish only 25% of its total area of 58,882 sq.mts of Sena Vihar Group Housing project and as such 25% of the total area so relinquished by the promoter AWHO as per Relinquishment Deed dated 18/04/1994 is approx including the suit schedule property and on the northern side of houses Nos.21 and 22 are not part of the areas so relinquished. As such no permission of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is required to mark and lay a kuchha walking path in these areas for the benefit of all the residents. No encroachment of any nature has been made by doing so. Along the compound of Sena Vihar Housing Colony, a minimum distance of 26 feet 3 inches has been provided from the compound to the nearest block/building as per the approved layout plan to meet the requirements of the Fire force authorities. The area behind plot Nos.1,2,3 including the suit schedule property is part of the set back area containing various infrastructure in this area for the benefit, maintenance and use by the residents for their sustenance and security. To support the contention of the defendant, incumbent president of defendant association is examined as D.W-1 and in his affidavit evidence he has reiterated the written statement averments. To support the said contention, the defendant association has produced Ex.D.1, certified copy of the layout plan, Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed of plot No.39, Ex.D.3 is the bye-law of the association, Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5 are the minutes of the meeting and bye-laws of association, Ex.D.7 is the resolution dated 31/08/2015, Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of the master broacher, Ex.D.9 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 18/11/1992, Ex.D.10 and Ex.D.11 are the attested copy of two letters dated 24/06/1998 and 09/09/1998, Ex.D.12 is the eleven photos, ed13 and 14 are the two CDs.

13. According to plaintiff, the owners of house Nos.1 to 3 are in permissive possession of open area of their houses. But no materials are produced by the plaintiffs to show that they have permissive possession of open area of their houses only. As per Ex.P.1, i.e., sale deed dated 30/04/1996, only measurement as mentioned in the Ex.P.1 has been allotted to them and as per the terms of 'C' schedule, purchaser shall have free and uninterrupted right of passage and liberty and all the persons authorized or permitted or authorized to do similar right at all times and for all purposes to use common areas in the schedule B property and the lands in and around the A schedule property as per clause-1. Further, Ex.P.3 reveals that plaintiffs are allotted plot No.1 only and it is not included in the suit schedule property and common areas. In plot No.1 measuring 200 sq.yds. and the same has been handedover to the plaintiff. Here it is not the case of the plaintiff that nobody disturbed his possession of the plot No.1. Ex.P.8 is the Relinquishment Deed wherein AWHO has relinquished the internal road, culverts and drains parallel to the road mentioned in detail at clause-A of schedule, 11 Totlots mentioned in clause-B schedule and children park between building blocks 'C' and 'F' as mentioned in clause-L of the schedule in favour of the Bangalore Development Authority for their development and maintenance. As per Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, the representations made by the plaintiff on 10/10/2011 and 17/10/2011 to the defendant and the same was rejected by the defendant as per Ex.P.12. But except plaintiff, none of the house/flat owners have approached this Court. Ex.P.26 is the modified layout plan produced by the plaintiff, the total area of housing colony mentioned as 58881-27 sq.mts and FSI permissible is 1,47,203.175 sq.mts. The proposed construction shown as per the plan is 47,176.475 sq.mts. comprising 11 flats and 7 banglows by retaining the 8" area as open space for beneficial enjoyment of the owner members. As per Ex.P.3, revised layout plan comprised 13 apartments and 71 banglows was implemented. According to plaintiff, the defendants have no right or power to alter or modify the basic approved plan of the layout placed at Annexure-III based on which the promoter AWHO had sold plots to the allottees. But in this case, plaintiffs themselves produced Ex.P.23, revised plan. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that they questioned the activities of the defendant before the Bangalore Development Authority nor Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. For approval of plan or disapproval of pan, the right vested with Bangalore Development Authority and Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike only. P.W-1 in his cross-examination admitted that Ex.D.1 is the revised layout plan and it was confronted by the defendant at the time of cross-examination. In the said plan, measurement of the suit schedule common area is more than 40'x45' i.e., East-West 45' and North to South on the western side 40 ft and eastern side is more than 40ft. Further, the said layout plan reveals that northern side of the plot Nos.1 to 3 is layout road as well as situated in plot nos.1 and 39 and measurement of the layout road area between plot No.1 and 39 measures about 31 ft in extent and from plot Nos.2 and 3 onwards till the road on the eastern side of plot No.3, the layout road measures 18 feet in extent. Further P.W-1 in his cross-examination admitted that suit schedule common area is open area and the same is not conveyed to him. But he claims that within his boundaries, service area is situated. But as per Ex.P.1, measurement mentioned as East West 40 ft and North to South 45 ft. It is not the case of the plaintiff that within that measurement suit schedule common area is coming. P.W-1 in his cross- examination admitted that Ex.D.2, the sale deed is of plot No.39. In the said sale deed, southern boundary of plot No.39 is shown in B schedule of the sale deed is shown as plot No.1. Hence, it cannot be said that plot No.39 is included the layout road measuring 31 ft in width situated in plot No.39 and plot No.1. In Ex.P.1, the area beyond plot No.1 is not given for enjoyment of the plaintiffs and said plot not touching to the landmark boundary wall on the southern side of plot No.39 on the northern side. According to plaintiff, they have not encroached the area of 31 ft layout road situated between plot No.1 and 30. But they have planted trees bearing fruits in that area. P.W-1 in his cross-examination admitted that suit schedule property was not in their possession. Further, P.W-1 in this cross-examination admitted that there is free movement of maintenance persons of defendants and other authorities in the suit schedule common area and there is a main electrical feeder line running into the house colony laid parallel to the southern boundary wall and an 8 inch water pipeline running in the service area.

3. The plaintiffs have taken specific contention that defendant association cannot claim ownership to the common area, common facilities in the housing complex. But as per Ex.D.11, the society raised issue that old project at Sena Vihar has been planned and developed as one project. The services like water supply, electrification, drainage roads, culverts and compound wall etc., the cost has been shared by all allottees (plot owners and flat owners). The said issue has been intimated to the Sena Vihar. The said averments explained to Brigadadier A.N.Suryanarayan treating him as MD, AWHO on 19/07/1998. Further, it is intimated that exclusive right of each plot owner is restricted to the area of each plot allotted to him. Further in same letter, the relinquishment deed mentioned that common areas like internal roads, drains and culverts, underground drainage, water supply lines laid by BWSSB have been handedover to Bangalore Development Authority and for maintenance. According to plaintiff, AWHO has allotted plot No.1 to them, it is described in their sale deed measuring 40x45 ft. The southern boundary of which is shown as boundary No.1. But suit schedule property is the area situated in between plot No.1 on the northern side and south boundary wall. According to plaintiff, when the southern boundary wall is shown in the south side of the plot No.1 in the sale deed, the said property is exclusively belonging to the plaintiff and defendant has no right to form jogging track or walking trail on the plaint schedule property. The said jogging track is effected to privacy of the plaintiff to enjoy their property. As per Ex.P.1, i.e., sale deed dated 30/04/1996 executed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation in respect of the plaintiff. In the said sale deed schedule B is shown as property purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions as agreed by the parties. Further, plaintiffs have undertaken to build the residential building in accordance with the sanctioned plan of the Bangalore Development Authority. The schedule C referred in the sale deed relates to the common areas and facilities available in the schedule A property to the plaintiff in respect of the schedule B property on access from road to the schedule B property through A schedule property as passage together with all rights of way from the entrance from the road in order to reach their respective place or plots to be constructed by them for residential purpose. The plaintiff shall not place any restriction in areas provided for reaching the schedule A property. According to plaintiff, eastern and western boundary mentioned in the sale deed wrongly mentioned and the same are corrected by way of rectification deed. Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16/06/2000 executed in between Army Welfare Housing Organisation in favour of Col.K.M.Uttappa and others in respect of plot No.22 in which northern boundary is shown as compound wall. The conditions mentioned in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6 are one and the same. Ex.P.5 is the registration of dwelling units wherein the value of normal plot is shown as Rs.89,000/- and preferential plot is shown as Rs.96,000/-. There is only Rs.5,000/- difference in between the normal plot and preferential plots. The said document does not disclose that in view of preferential plot area and preferential flat is more than the area of normal plot. According to defendant, all other areas found in A schedule property mentioned in sale deed is common area, which is available for enjoyment of the defendant association and for maintenance of BWSSB, BESCOM etc., for the benefit of the members of the defendant. The said contention admitted by P.W-1 in his cross-examination. The letter dated 24/06/1998 discloses that ownership of all the common facilities already vests with all the allottees jointly and hence the ownership cannot be transferred to the society. The letter dated 09/09/1998 disclosed whole project at Sena Vihar has been planned and developed as one project. The said contents reveals that exclusive right of each plot owner is restricted to the area of each plot allotted to him. Further, bye-laws which was marked as Ex.D.3 states about the common areas and facilities. According to said provision, all road, tracks, approaches, tot lots, parks, playgrounds, open spaces, drains, compound wall, gates and any other areas not allotted by name to any member/allottee, including all resources, fitting, fixtures and structures located therein. All such common areas referred in the said clause and the facilities are the joint property managed and administered and maintained by the society. Rule 34 of the said bye-law states that no encroachment is permitted on common areas. All encroachments shall be evicted at the risk and expenses of the offender without any notice. It is not the case of the plaintiff that common area encroached by the defendant association by putting track way. The sale deeds produced by the plaintiff and defendants reveals that B schedule of their respective sale deeds have been allotted to the respective plot owners. Thus, though in the sale deed of the plaintiff, southern side is shown as boundary wall, the measurement of the property is shown as 40x45 ft only. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that boundaries mentioned in the sale deed are only measurement of 40'x45'. The defendant has proved that all the area shown in the A schedule of the sale deed i.e., Ex.P.1 except area of B schedule belongs to common area, which is also referred in the C schedule of the sale deed in Ex.P.1. Hence, southern side of the plaintiff property shown as south boundary wall will not give the plaintiff any preferential right or extra right to use and enjoy exclusively the area available behind the plot which is allotted to them. Further, defendant has proved that defendant association has formed for the development and maintenance of the project of construction of houses and plots. Further, defendant association proves that said association has power to take proper steps from time to time for the development of the entire project and the for beneficial enjoyment of the common area available in the layout. I have already stated that except plaintiffs nobody questioned the putting of jogging /walking path by the defendant association. Further, if the defendant association has violated the conditions of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, why should not plaintiffs have made Bangalore Development Authority or Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as party in this case. Further, plaintiffs have not produced any materials to show that they questioned before the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike with respect to putting the walking track by the defendant. The plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that they have right over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant association has proved the suit schedule property is a common area belongs to all plot and flat owners of the members of the defendant association. Further, plaintiffs have failed to prove that walking track is constructed in the land lying between south side of plot Nos.1 to 3, 21 and 22 and boundary wall of Sena Vihar Housing Complex and the said property is exclusively in possession of the said owners. Without making Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as party, plaintiff cannot say that walking track cannot be constructed without approved plan from Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. If the said walking track disturbed the members of the defendant association, definitely the members of the defendant association would move the objections before the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. But in this case except plaintiff, nobody can question the putting of walking track. On foregoing reasons, defendant has proved that suit is highly misconceived and not maintainable in law as mentioned in the written statement because defendants having unassailable right over the suit schedule property and has been managing and maintaining the common areas and common amenities in the Sena Vihar Housing Colony. Further, plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that defendant has no right to modify the basic approved plan of the layout placed at Annexure- III based on which the promoter AWHO had sold plots to the allottees. Further, plaintiff is not entitled for the mandatory injunction as sought for. Accordingly, I answer issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative and issue No.3 in the Affirmative.