The main legal point established is the entitlement to injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts based on interference with property and common areas.

1. The long and short of the case of the plaintiff, as stood exposited from the averments in the plaint could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:-

The plaintiff is the owner of the flat found described in the schedule of the plaint. The defendants 1 and 2 are also other flat owners in the same complex. D1 is responsible for maintaining the common area and also providing other facilities to the flat owners, for which, he also collected money; but, he has not so far accounted. D1 and his wife D2 indulged in dumping materials in the common passage and also interfered with the right of the plaintiff in parking his car in the area ear marked for his use. Hence this suit seeking the following reliefs:

"1. To grant permanent injunction, restraining the defendants their agents, servants and men and everyone claiming under him and acting on his behalf from, in any way, interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs property and more fully described in the schedule B hereunder, either by interfering with the car parking area earmarked for the plaintiff or by blocking the entrance to the B schedule property from Kumarappa Street, or by interfering with the common areas and common amenities or in any other manner whatsoever;

2. to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents, servants, and men and everyone claiming under him and acting on his behalf from, in any way, trespassing into the common area like common passage open space around the flat, open terrace and other common facilities and amenities either by storing the things in the common area or by high handedly occupying the common area and common facilities or in any other manner whatsoever;

3. to direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as damages together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the plaint till date of payment;

4. to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from in any way tampering with the electricity meter or water supply or any other common amenities in the suit flat or in the common area, common passage, open space, open terrace, etc., or in any other manner whatsoever;

5. to direct the first defendant to render accounts from May 2004 for the amounts collected from the plaintiff and other flat owners towards towards mainbtenance charges for the maintenance of A Schedule property;

7. to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to pay cost of the suit."

2. The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, gainsaying and refuting the allegations/averments in the plaint.

3. My learned predecessor framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs property either by interfering with the car parking area earmarked for the plaintiff or by blocking the entrance to the B Schedule property as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the common area like common passage open space around the flat, open terrace and other common facilities and amenities either by storing the things in the common area or by high handedly occupying the common areas and common facilities as prayed for;

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for Rs.10 lakhs towards damages with interest at 24% per annum as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of permanent injunction retraining the defendants 1 and 2 from tampering with the electricity meter or water supply or any other common amenities in the suit flat or in the common area, common passage, open space, open terrace as prayed for?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for rendition of accounts against the first defendant from May 20