Declaratory relief is discretionary and inappropriate if alternative remedies are available under existing contracts.

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellants against the decision of the High Court allowing the Respondent's claim with costs of RM30,000.00 against the 1st Appellant and RM10,000.00 as against the 2nd Appellant.

[2] The reliefs sought by the Respondent against the Appellants which was granted by the High Court are for the following orders as stated in para 35 of the Statement of Claim, as follows (p 57 - 59 of Records of Appeal Jilid 1):

i) A declaration that the two (2) units of shop lots known as Unit A-2 and A-3 Putra Walk, Taman Pinggiran Putra, Bandar Putra Permai, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor Darul Ehsan of Putra Walk at Bandar Putra Permai were sold as 'individual titled' shop lots pursuant to their respective Sales and Purchase Agreement both dated 16 January 2007;

ii) A declaration that there are no common facilities is respect of the two (2) units of shop lots known as Unit A-2 and A-3 Putra Walk, Taman Pinggiran Putra, Bandar Putra Permai, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor Darul Ehsan of Putra Walk at Bandar Putra Permai pursuant to their respective Sales and Purchase Agreement both dated 16 January 2007;

iii) A declaration that the 1st Appellant is solely liable to the 2nd Appellant for all maintenance charges of Unit A-2 and A-3 Putra Walk, Taman Pinggiran Putra, Bandar Putra Permai, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor Darul Ehsan of Putra Walk at Bandar Putra Permai;

iv) The 1st Appellant shall pay all maintenance charges in respect of both said units to the 2nd Appellant;

v) That the 1st and/or the 2nd Appellant hand over the documents of Strata Title issued in respect of the Respondent's two units to the Respondent forthwith.

[3] The Appellants are the 1st and 2nd Defendants whilst the Respondent is the Plaintiff in the Court below. Dissatisfied, the Appellants now appealed against the granting of the declarations.

[4] Having considered the submissions of the respective counsels and having perused the Records of Appeal before us, we unanimously allowed the appeal of the 1st and 2nd Appellants with costs in the sum of RM30,000.00 to the 1st Appellant and RM15,000.00 to the 2nd Appellant subject to the payment of allocator.

[5] We now set out the reasons for our decision. Our decision was based on the issue raised and argued before us during the hearing of the appeal.

Backgrounds Facts

[6] The 1st Appellant is the developer for a Project known as "Putra Walk Bandar Putra Permai" (Putra Walk). The development of Putra Walk consists of 9 blocks known as Block A to Block I.

[7] The 2nd Appellant is the Joint Management Body of Putra Walk. The 2nd Appellant was incorporated on 13 August 2011.

[8] The Respondent entered into two (2) separate Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) dated 16 January 2007 with the 1st Appellant for purchase of 2 units of shop lots, known as Unit A-2 and Unit A-3 Putra Walk for a sum of RM678,000.00 each. The Respondent's two units are located at Block A.

[9] On 17 December 2009, the 1st Appellant issued a notice to the Respondent requesting the Respondent to collect vacant possession and the keys to both units.

[10] On 4 April 2012, the 2nd Appellant through its appointed property manager Procon Management Services Sdn Bhd issued a Notice 3/2012 to all parcel owners/occupiers of Block A, B and C informing of the charging of maintenance charges with effect from 1 January 2012 which will be determined in proportion to the allocated share units. As at 28 August 2012, the outstanding sum and owing by the Respondent to the 2nd Appellant are RM27,058.37 for Unit A-2 and RM27,085.79 for Unit A-3.

[11] The Respondent objected to the demand for maintenance charges and emphasized th