The appellate court affirmed the significance of approved plans in property disputes, reversing the trial court's findings based on misallocated parking spaces and misapplication of evidentiary burdens.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. This Second Appeal is filed against judgment and decree in A.S.No.25 of 2011 dated 24.08.2015 passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby the 1st appellate Court set aside the judgment of trial Court in O.S.No.855 of 2008, dated 21.12.2010 passed by the First Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit i.e., OS No.855 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the Original Suit.

3. The plaintiff filed suit seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendant to hand over car parking space No. 9, which the plaintiff alleges was altered and renumbered as No. 11. The plaintiff purchased Flat 402 along with car parking space no. 9 from the defendant, through registered sale deed dated 4.6.2008. The defendant, owner of the land, was allotted Flat Nos. 402 and 404, along with parking spaces no. 9 and 11, respectively, after construction. The plaintiff verified parking space no. 9 before purchase. However, the plaintiff claims the defendant later swapped parking spaces, renumbering space no. 9 as 11, and vice versa. The defendant allegedly rented Flat 404 and allowed tenants to use the original parking space no. 9, now renumbered as 11. The plaintiff contends the defendant had no authority to alter the parking space numbers without approval from the flat owners’ association or promoters. Parking space no. 9 (renumbered to 11) is near the apartment’s electric meters, which the plaintiff claims violates the AP Fire Service Act, National Building Code, National Electrical Code, and the AP (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act and Rules 1987.

4. A legal notice was issued on 4.7.2008, but a typographical error listed parking space no. 11 as 12. The defendant allegedly exploited this mistake in a misleading reply on 12.7.2008. The plaintiff claims to have purchased parking space no. 9 in good faith and is seeking its return through the mandatory injunction.

5. The defendant filed written statement admitting ownership of Flat Nos. 402 and 404 and acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased Flat 402 with car parking space no. 9. He denied altering the parking spaces, claiming the allegation is false, and asserts that he showed parking space no. 9 to the plaintiff before registration, who was satisfied at the time of purchase. He stated that condition No. 9 of the sale deed dated 4.6.2008, which prohibits alterations to common areas, including parking spaces, making it impossible for him to have made any changes. The defendant contends that the plaintiff filed the suit to wrongfully claim the parking space allocated to Flat 404, which he asserts rightfully belongs to him.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by trial Court.

1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether the defendant can be directed to handover the car parking space which is presently numbered as 11 to the plaintiff for the suit schedule flat no. 402?

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 4 witnesses were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B6.

8. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the following grounds;

i) that the trial Court found that the approved plan Ex.A7 shows that there are only 10 parking spaces. However, the Court relied on the plaintiff’s statement that the defendant possessed two par