Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
M/s. Lakshmi Apartments Flat Owners – Petitioner
Vs.
M/s.Chithamani Colony Flat Owners, Welfare Association – Respondents
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1525 & 1989 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2014
Decided On : 23.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mrs.Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.S.Baskaran
For Respondent: Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Veerapathiran.
The importance of providing clear evidence, such as Sale Deeds, to establish property rights and the limitations on conveying rights to immovable property without a registered document.
Headnote:
Parking Dispute - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, Section 92 & 93 of the Indian Evidence Act - The court discussed the dispute over the vacant land allotted for parking, the lack of evidence to establish it as common property, and the legal implications of the Housing Board's rights over the property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Flat Owners' Welfare Association, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant Association, disputing the use of a 2400 sq.ft. parking area. The defendant Association planned to construct new flats on the land, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the disputed land was a common parking area for all flat owners. The court set aside the lower court's orders and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months.
Issues: Dispute over the ownership and use of a parking area, lack of evidence to establish the land as common property, and the rights of the Housing Board over the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence, such as Sale Deeds, to establish the status of the disputed property. It also highlighted the limitations on conveying rights to immovable property without a registered document.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed, the lower court's orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months.
The defendant in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD).No.1525 of 2014 challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.90 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City 3 Civil Court, Chennai, modifying the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.6098 of 2013 in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD).No.1989 of 2014 challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.91 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, modifying the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.6097 of 2013 in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. The plaintiff/Flat Owners' Welfare Association filed the suit in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/ Flat Owners' Welfare Association from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 2400 sq.ft. parking area, after Block 11 & 12 either by constructing building or by any other method except under due process of law and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/ Association from interfering with the plaintiff/Association's use of the common space for parking their vehicles situated at common vacant land of 2400 sq.ft. after Block 11 & 12.
4. The application in I.A.No.6097 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff/ Association for interim injunction restraining the defendant/Association from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by constructing or obstructing or interfering with their peaceful possession in respect of the vacant land measuring 2400 sq.ft., after Block 11 & 12.
5. The application in I.A.No.6098 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff/ Association for interim injunction restraining the defendant/Association from interfering with their use of the common space for parking their vehicles situated at the common vacant land of 2400 sq.ft., after Block 11 & 12.
6. According to the plaintiff, the Association is a registered Association, which was formed by the allottees of the Flats constructed in Block 1 to 6 at Ponnambalam Salai, K.K.Nagar, Chennai. After the Flats were constructed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the same were sold to the individuals. Each Block contains 6 Flats and totally there are 36 Flats in 6 Blocks viz., 1 to 6 on the Northern side. Since there was no space for parking for the Flat owners, the plaintiff Association made a representation 5 to the Housing Board and the Housing Board made space for parking of their two wheelers and four wheelers. According to the plaintiff, the Housing Board allotted vacant land of 2400 sq.ft. after Block 11 & 12. On the South of Blocks 1 to 6, the defendant Association constructed 6 blocks viz., Blocks 7 to 12 each consisting of 6 Flats. According to the plaintiff, for the purpose of parking of vehicles of 12 Flat owners (i.e.) Block Nos.1 to 12, 2400 sq.ft. vacant land after Block 11 & 12 was allotted.
7. Subsequently, one Sri Rama Baktha Jana Samaj Temple authority requested the Housing Board to allot vacant land for the purpose of constructing a Temple and the request made by the Temple was denied by the Housing Board stating that the land is allotted only for the purpose of parking the vehicles of the Flat owners in Block Nos.1 to 12.
8. Subsequently, since all the flats have become old and in a dilapidated condition, the owners wished to demolish the existing Flats and wanted to construct new Flats in the area of Block Nos.1 to 6. Similarly, the owners of Block Nos.7 to 12 also wanted to construct new Flats in their area. The defendant Association started preparing to construct new Flats in their land along with the vacant land measuring 2400 sq.ft. South of Block 11 & 12, which was allotted to all the owners. The plaintiff Association 6 wrote a letter to the defendant
