The suit was dismissed due to non-maintainability, lack of necessary permissions, and failure to seek a relief of declaration. The counter claim was dismissed due to lack of evidence and failure to establish damages.

1. This civil suit has been filed, to pass a judgment and decree, against the Defendants:-

(a) for permanent injunction, restraining the 1st Defendant from in any manner interfering with the right, title, possession, interest and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs as co-owners in respect of the common areas and amenities in the land, building and premises situated at 'KG Retreat No.119, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, more fully described in the Schedule, including the association room/library cum indoor games rooms and security room situated in the ground floor of the apartment.

(b) for mandatory injunction directing the 1st Defendant to restore the association room/ library cum indoor games room and security room situated in the ground floor of the apartment in the suit property to the original state by removing the door put up by the 1st Defendant in the back wall of the Association room and reconstructing the demolished wall portion and by re-fixing the door at the front and side wall of the room.

(c) for costs of the suit.

2. The Schedule of property is the land, building and premises, known as KG Retreat at Door No.119, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, measuring 4 grounds and 252 sq.ft. Even though in the relief, there is mention about the Association room/ library cum indoor game rooms and security room, there is no separate Schedule shown for the same in the plaint.

3. According to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs are the owners and occupiers of residential flats in the said 'KG Retreat Apartment', which was developed by the 2nd Defendant in a joint venture with the 1st Defendant. The development agreement was dated 9.12.1992. Ten flats were constructed. It is stated that all the owners, except two owners, who are the owners of flats 1A and 1B, were parties to the suit. The apartment consisted of a ground and three floors. Out of 10 flats, 9 flats are residential and one flat in the ground floor was non residential. According to the Plaintiffs the agreement for development dated 9.12.1992 indicated that the constructed area were to be shared in the ratio of 50:50 between the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The 2nd Defendant agreed to allot 50% of the constructed area to the 1st Defendant and the 1st Defendant had agreed to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the 2nd Defendant or his nominees for 50% undivided share in the suit land.

4. It had been further provided that the apartment owners had right of enjoyment over the common area and that if there was any variation in the area of the flat or in the specifications agreed by the 2nd Defendant to be delivered to the 1st Defendant, the value of such variation would be paid by one party to the other. All differences must be mutually sorted out by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. It had been stated that 50% of the undivided share in the land, namely, 9630 sq.ft. of land, was sold and conveyed by the Power of Attorney Agent appointed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the Plaintiffs and other allottees/purchasers.

5. It had been stated that the 1st Plaintiff is said to have purchased an undivided 8.79% share of land of 9852 sq.ft. by a sale deed dated 10.6.2002 registered as Document No.1263 of 2002 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar. The 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs had purchased an undivided 14.89% share of 50% of the land under a sale deed dated 21.1.1994, registered as Document No. 808 of 1994 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar. The 4th Plaintiff had purchased an undivided 7.64% share of the land by a sale deed dated 14.6.1993, registered as Document No. P605 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar. The 3rd Defendant had purchased an undivided 13% out of 50% of the land by a sale deed dated 6.6.2003, registered as Document No.1303 of 2003 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar. Similarly, the other allottees/purchasers have also purchased undivided share of land for valuable consideration.

6. It had been further stated that after construction, the f