IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Chandrasekharan, J.
M/s. B.B.C. Spring Field Flat, Owners’ Association, (Registration No.150/1996), Authorised and Ex-Represented by its Secretary, Mr.Suresh Chandra D.Jain - Plaintiff
Versus
Inderchand D.Kochar and ors. – Defendants
C.S.No.555 of 2010
Decided On : 15-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the suit and relief sought. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of ownership and property details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. issues framed for determination. (Para 8) |
| 4. plaintiff's arguments regarding common areas. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. defendants' position and legal interpretations. (Para 13 , 41 , 43) |
| 6. validity of agreements and documents. (Para 16 , 26 , 28) |
| 7. acquisition and rights in property ownership. (Para 40) |
| 8. final decision and order of dismissal. (Para 44 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. r/w Order IV of Rule 1 of the O.S. Rules , for a decree and judgment against the defendants and their agents, servants or any one acting under them:
(a) Declaration that the sale deed executed by 7 defendant in favour of defendant 1 to 6 on 15.4.2005 and registered as Doc.No.819 of 2005 for the “B” Schedule property is null void and delivery of the possession (excluding the dwelling units on rear side) of the “B” Schedule property to the extent of vacant land in order to make it as common area for the entire property as per 1st Original Sanction Plan B/13969/89 dated 20.6.1990 issued by 10th and 11th defendant to enjoy by all the occupants of 18 grounds 58 sq. feet., belongs to entire Flat owners of the Association and thus render Justice.
(b) Mandatory direction to remove the compound wall with gate (as shown in the plan attached to plaint) marked red put up by the defendants and remove unauthorised construction of compound wall as shown in the Plan by defendants 10 and 11 in between the front property and the rear side properties i.e., between “A“ and “B” Schedule properties as shown in the Plan attached to the plaint, paving to all the residents and the flat owners in order to utilise the rear side “B” Schedule property as common area for parking and other common facilities as left out for the sanction plan of 18 grounds 58 sq. feet., for which the plan sanction has been obtained and thus render justice (Plan attached to plaint with description).
(c) For damages of a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- at the rate of 3 lakhs per month against the defendant 1 to 7 and also 13th defendant for unlawfully and illegally utilising the common area as exclusive area and also conveying common area for the defendants 1 to 6 by the 7th defendant at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per month from the January 2009 to 30th April 2010 for a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- and also damages from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree.
(d) Declare that the release deeds executed by defendants 8 9 in favour of the 7th defendant by two release deeds dated 10.7.2003 and 09.2.2004 and registered as Doc. Nos. 1569 of 2005 and 364 of 2004 are null and void as the defendants 8 and 9 do not have any right to convey the land in favour of the 7th defendant.
(e) For Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 in dealing with the “B” Schedule property or putting up any construction or leasing with or doing any act on the “B” Schedule property or on common area as indicated in Original Plan B/13969/89, dated 20.06.1990 (for 18 ground 58 sq. feet) and not to allow any unauthorised construction in the suit schedule mentioned property by the Defendants 10 and 11 and thus render justice.
(f) for costs of the suit;
The suit is filed for declaration, mandatory injunction, damages and for permanent injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiff association is that there are totally 77 flats in the front side and three flats on the rear side of the property. All the members formed an association called as M/s.B.B.C.Spring Field Flats Association. ‘A’ schedule property originally belongs to K.Kumarasamy. K.Kumarasamy gave the entire ‘A’ schedule property for development and sale to the 12th defendant, who promoted flats and sold to the members of the association. The extent of the property belong to K.Kumarasamy was approximately 18 grounds and 58 sq.ft. K.Kumarasamy died on 23.09.1993, leaving behind his wife, so
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira
AI
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove their title; additionally, a party cannot be granted both a mandatory injunction for restoration of property and monetary....
Plaintiffs must establish the identity of the property to succeed in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
The court established that admissions regarding property boundaries and the validity of sale deeds are critical in determining ownership, and discrepancies in measurements do not negate established o....
Possession established through valid title, even against unauthorized occupants, warrants legal protection; trial court's dismissal was erroneous due to failure to recognize ownership evidence.
The judgment establishes that the burden of proof for ownership lies with the claimant, and permissive possession does not confer ownership rights without supporting evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.