Point of Law: Apartment - Sale of parking space - Having accepted agreement and terms under for purchasing the separate parking space now cannot question the same.

JUDGMENT :

1. This suit had been filed originally for the execution of a Conveyance Deed and recovery of amount allegedly/illegally withheld by the defendants and for damages for abuse of process, harassment, criminal intimidation, blackmail and extortion.

2. The case set up by the plaintiffs who are husband and wife is that they are the joint owners of Apartment No. E-103, situated at Ambience Lagoon Apartment Residential Complex, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana, which they had purchased from the defendants on 20th October, 2001 vide the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. It is stated that the plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs.54,47,706/- towards the purchase of the flat. They were then required to pay an additional 13% of the sale price towards the registration charges for the conveyance of the said flat and thus, the defendants collected from the plaintiffs, as also from the other apartment owners, a sum of Rs.6,61,760/- which the plaintiffs paid in two installments in the hope that the Sale Deed would be registered in their names.

3. The said sum of Rs.6,61,760/- was paid in two installments. One of Rs.3,61,750/- vide cheque No.544287 dated 10th April, 2003 and the second installment of Rs.3,00,000/- vide cheque No.544288 dated 12th May, 2003. This was duly acknowledged by the defendants vide receipt dated 10th April, 2003. The defendants did not execute the Conveyance Deed for over a year after collection of the registration charges, and despite promising to do so within a period of 75 days from 3rd August, 2004, nothing happened, and until 19th August, 2014, when this Court directed the defendants to do so, no Conveyance Deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs.

4. It may be mentioned here that after the directions of this Court on 19th August, 2014, a Conveyance Deed was executed by the defendants No.2 to 5 and a sum of Rs.4,35,800/- was spent on 27th August, 2014 for registration of the Conveyance Deed. The suit was thereafter amended to incorporate the subsequent events and to adjust the amount claimed, as due and recoverable by the plaintiffs after adjusting the said sum of Rs.4,35,800/- utilized for registration of the Conveyance Deed. Thus, now, the claim for recovery is for Rs.4,70,960/- being the difference of the original total amount claimed i.e., Rs.9,06,760/- minus Rs.4,35,800/-, and Rs.65,700/-, which the plaintiffs claim was also illegally collected from them at the time of registration of the Conveyance Deed, and was liable to be returned, with interest w.e.f. 28th August, 2014 till the amended plaint was filed. Compoundable interest @ 27% has also been claimed.

5. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants had illegally charged money for parking space, whereas, parking areas were common areas under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 and could not be sold separately. Yet a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and another sum of Rs.70,000/- had been collected from the plaintiffs for covered parking space. The plaintiffs have claimed that this amount be returned to them.

6. A further sum has been claimed towards harassment. It is stated in the plaint that when the plaintiffs were out of the country, the defendants issued a letter dated 25th May, 2011, which was received by the plaintiffs on 04th June, 2011, asking the plaintiffs to be present before the Sub-Registrar on 4th June, 2011 itself, failing which, the allotment of the flat would be cancelled. Thereafter a letter of a similar nature was sent on 16th June, 2011, threatening to cancel the allotment. The defendants sent another letter dated 06th July, 2011, cancelling the allotment of the flat to the plaintiffs and asking them to vacate the same. This, the defendants did with full knowledge that the plaintiffs were not living in India at that time and had gone abroad. It was only on 8th July, 2011, after their return to India that the plaintiffs filed the contempt petition before this Court as the RWA of the Apartment Complex and the defendants we