Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. The controversy essentially boils down to the question as to whether the annex block formed part and parcel of Flat No.1. To explore an answer, the starting point would be, the Plaintiff's case as to what was allotted to Mrs. Sayeeda Rauf by NHC. The Plaintiff banks upon the Application for Registration (Exhibit "P1/31") and list of members annexed thereto. In the said list of members the name of Mrs. Sayeeda Rauf finds place at Sr. No.1 as the allottee of Flat No.1 and area of the flat is 1750 sq yards and Garages Nos. 12 and 13 admeasuring 384 sq. yards. There is evidence to indicate that the flats on the upper floor of Flat No.1 admeasured 1400 sq ft each. 

                   APPLICATION       FOR    REGISTRATION        OF     THE

             SOCIETY (EXHIBIT "P1/31"):

103. In the list of Promoters and Members of the then proposed society, the particulars of members along with the area of the Flat and costs of the flat was furnished. The area of Flat No.1, which was allotted to Mrs. Sayeeda Rauf, was shown 1750 sq yards plus 384 sq yards. The consideration for the Flat was shown Rs.65,000/- and for Garages Rs.10,000/-. In the remark column it was mentioned the occupant holds two Garages 12 and 13 (combined one).

104. In another list appended to the said Application, the number of flats, owners names, area and amount of consideration were mentioned. The area of Flat No. 1 was shown 1750 sq yards and the consideration Rs. 65,000/-.

105. Mr. Bhandari attempted to canvass a submission that the consideration paid by Mrs. Sayeeda Rauf was significantly more than

-S-1894-2010+.DOC the consideration paid by the other flat owners. A faint attempt was made to draw home the point that the additional consideration was towards the open space/garden and the annex room.

106. It is true from the plan as well as from the perusal of the statements annexed to the Application for registration, it becomes evident that the area of the flats on the upper storey of Flat No.1 was 1400 sq yards. Whereas the area of Flat No.1 was 1750 sq yards. However, if the particulars furnished in the statement annexed to the Application are compared and contrasted, such an inference, sought to be propounded by Mr. Bhandari, cannot be readily drawn.

107. If the consideration paid by the holders of flats having an area 1050 sq yards, i.e., Rs.40,000/- and 1400 sq yards, i.e., Rs.50,000/- is compared with the consideration paid by Mrs. Sayeeda Rauf i.e., Rs.65,000/- for a flat admeasuring 1750 sq yards, it appears that the consideration commensurated with the area of the flat and no additional consideration for the area covered by the garden was paid.