SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 2412

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Mrs. Bhima Lakshmi Narasamah & Others
Versus
Prince Manohar Devadoss & Others
S.A. Nos.761 of 2008 and 802 of 2008
Decided on: 14-07-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:K. Ramanadha Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R. Karunagaran, R2, L.N. Pragasam, Advocates, (Chennai Corporation), R3, C. Kathiravan, CMDA.

The Act grants Apartment Owners undivided interest in common areas and facilities, and the approved plan designates common amenities, entitling individual owners to claim rights over them.

Headnote:

Apartment Ownership Act - Common Area - Sec.6, Sec.8 - Summary of Acts and Sections

Fact of the Case:

Dispute over common area in the basement floor of 'Lakshmi Apartments'. Plaintiff sought declaration, mandatory injunction, and permanent injunction against unauthorized construction and interference with possession. Third defendant claimed right to flat 'D' in the basement.

Finding of the Court:

Courts held that the approved plan designated the basement area as common amenities and facilities, and unauthorized construction violated the plan. Plaintiff's suit was decreed, and appeals by the landowner were dismissed.

Issues: Applicability of Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, maintainability of the suit, and entitlement to common areas and facilities.

Ratio Decidendi: The Act applied to the building, granting Apartment Owners undivided interest in common areas and facilities. Plaintiff's suit was maintainable as an individual Apartment Owner. The approved plan designated the basement area as common amenities and facilities, entitling the plaintiff to claim rights over them.

Final Decision: Second appeals were dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings. Status quo order was vacated due to unauthorized construction in the basement area.

Judgment :

1. S.A.No.761/2008 arises out of the concurrent findings of Courts below granting declaration that Generator Room, Store Room, A.C. Room, M.E.S. Room referred in the approved plan as common amenities and common basement floor in "Lakshmi Apartments" as common area and granting Permanent Injunction and Mandatory Injunction.

2. S.A.No.802/2008 is preferred against the concurrent findings of Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the land owner for Permanent Injunction restraining the flat owners from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of 730 sq.ft. in basement floor in "Lakshmi Apartments".

3. Since both the appeals arise out of common Judgment involving common points for determination, both the appeals shall stand disposed of by this common Judgment. Though second appeals are of the year 2008, with the consent of the parties, at the stage of notice before admission, second appeals were taken up for final hearing. For convenience, parties are referred in their original rank as per their array in O.S.No.7077/2007.

4. Uncontroverted facts giving rise to the suit and appeals are as follows:-

(i) Lakshmi Apartments at No.12, Varadharajapet Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai is about two grounds. The property originally belonged to the third Defendant and she got the property by Sale Deed dated 20.09.1961 from one Devaraj. The third Defendant approached the fourth Defendant M/s. Lakshmi Builders to develop the property. On 19.03.1997, an Agreement of Sale was entered into between the Defendants 3 and 4 for a consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-to be paid by the Builder. plus constructed area in the apartments. The third Defendant had executed a Power of Attorney empowering 4th Defendants wife to sell the portion of the grounds to the nominees of the builder.

ii) On 11.09.1999, plaintiff entered into a Construction Agreement with the fourth defendant to construct a flat in the first floor, measuring an extent of 974 sq.ft. as per the approved plan. Apart from the plaintiff, Altaf Ahamed, Venkataraman, Suresh Hegde, Vijayan and Ganapathi [respondents in S.A.No.802/2008] are other purchasers of flats who entered into agreement with the builder.

(iii) The dispute pertains to the common area in the basement floor. Case of plaintiff is that at the time of entering into construction agreement, the builder has produced the approved plan No.D8/2108/99 dated 19. 1999 issued by the Corporation of Madras. Plan provides common facilities like generator room, A/C Room, Store Room, MES Room. Common area and amenities shall be used by the occupants of the flats. After construction, the fourth defendant delivered the flats to the plaintiff and other flat owners.

.(iv) As per the plan, six flats have to be constructed. Further case of the plaintiff is that plan provides them common facilities like generator room, A/C Room, Store Room, MES Room. As such, the plaintiff has to be given Undivided Share of 604 sq.ft. Altaf Ahmed 723.0 sq.ft., Venkataraman 602 sq.ft., Suresh Hegde 595 sq.ft., Vijayan 704 sq.ft. and Ganapathi 372 sq.ft. Plaintiff has alleged that the builder colluded with the third defendant and illegally retained undivided share of land to an extent of 412 sq.ft. Therefore, the undivided share registered by the builder was only to an extent of 3188/3600 sq.ft.

.(v) It is the further case of the Plaintiff that the Builder and third defendant have converted the basement area, which is meant for common facilities into a residential flat and commercial area and the said construction is illegal and against the approved plan. The builder has no right to construct and deliver the flat “D” measuring 730 sq.ft. in the basement area. There is no such construction shown in the plan approved, as alleged by the land owner and such construction is in violation of the approved plan granted by the defendants 1 and 2.

.(vi) n O.S.No.7077/2000, plaintiff has sought for:-

.(i) declaration that generator room, A/C Room, Store Room, ME


































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top