This appeal is by the plaintiff, whose suit has been partly decreed by the trial court.

2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that she had purchased an apartment bearing no.103, on the first floor of the apartment building named, ‘Revelstoke’, at 6/4, III Cross, Hutchins Road, St. Thomas Town, Bangalore-560084, with interest in the undivided land on which the apartment building was constructed, namely 17.42% (853.80 Sq.ft.) as mentioned in the Sale Deed, dated 3.3.2004, executed and registered in her favour. The apartment consisted of an area of 1226 Sq.ft., the plaintiff was also entitled to the use of a car parking space, a two wheeler parking space and the right to all common areas, including the terrace of the building as described in Schedule-C to the Sale deed.

The plaintiff’s vendors were said to be one P. Gunavathy, the owner of the land and M/s Masonite Construction Company, the Developer. It was said to be agreed as between the owner and the developer that the total saleable area of the building was 7089.73 sft. The building had 8 apartments in all. Under the Joint Development Agreement, the owner had reserved for herself two apartments in the ground floor and two apartments in the first floor. The developer is said to have reserved one apartment in the first floor, which has been purchased by the plaintiff, and three apartments in the second floor.

The defendants are said to have purchased Apartment no.201 in the second floor on 28.6.2007. It was the plaintiff’s case that she and the other apartment owners had free access to the terrace and to the common facilities such as the water tank, plumbing lines, and other installations. She had been freely accessing the terrace area from the date of purchase of the apartment till the year 2010. It was alleged that as on 12.5.2010, the defendants suddenly claimed that a portion of the terrace belonged to them exclusively and had erected an iron grille and locked the same. The appellant was thus prevented from accessing that area. This is the controversy which led to the filing of the suit in OS 3275/2010, on the file of the Court of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

Initially, the suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction, however, it was later amended to include the prayer for a declaration.

The defendants, on entering appearance, had filed their written statement to contend that they were indeed the joint owners of an apartment bearing no.201in the second floor of the apartment building – Revelstoke, and the super built area of their apartment was 1226 Sq.ft. with 17.4% of undivided interest in the land along with exclusive rights to the terrace area situated on the southern side, measuring an extent of 859.94 Sq.ft. and two car parking spaces in the basement under their sale deed dated 28.6.2007, read with a Rectification Deed dated 9.7.2010.

It was their further case that the terrace area was not a common area, and there are no common facilities, such as the water tank, plumbing lines and other installations in the terrace area earmarked as their exclusive area and it is situated away from wooden door which provides access to other apartment owners to reach the utilities that are installed on the terrace, for inspection and maintenance. The small fence erected to demarcate their exclusive area on the terrace does not cause any hindrance or nuisance to any body much less the plaintiff.

It was alleged that the plaintiff’s suit only carries nuisance value and was brought only to cause inconvenience and annoyance to the defendants as she was compelled by the developer to pay her share of the common maintenance expenses shared by all the apartment owners, by filing a suit, which was decreed. This had apparently rankled her and had resulted in the present frivolous suit b