Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Covering or repairing the roof due to seepage does not alter its status as a common property and does not make such actions legal. The structure's illegal extension or modifications on common property are subject to removal and cannot be justified as legal repairs or cover-ups ["Arvinder Singh vs M/s AIPL Ambuja Housing and Urban Infrastructure Ltd. - Consumer State"].
Seepage and Structural Damage - Defendant Cannot Control Seepage; Covering Roof is Not Illegal but May Be Unlawful if It Violates Sale Deed Terms ["Arvinder Singh vs M/s AIPL Ambuja Housing and Urban Infrastructure Ltd. - Consumer State"], ["CHANG CHOR HEONG &ANOR vs PUNCAK KENCANA SDN BHD - High Court"], ["方寶儀 vs 涵碧別墅業主立案法團 - Lands Tribunal"]
However, if the roof is a common property and the defendant’s actions involve unauthorized modifications or erection of structures, these are illegal and breach the sale deed and Deed of Mutual Covenants ["方寶儀 vs 涵碧別墅業主立案法團 - Lands Tribunal"].
Legal Status of Covering Roofs - Not Illegal If Within Sale Deed Terms but Illegal if It Constitutes Unauthorized Construction ["方寶儀 vs 涵碧別墅業主立案法團 - Lands Tribunal"], ["Arvinder Singh vs M/s AIPL Ambuja Housing and Urban Infrastructure Ltd. - Consumer State"]
Analysis and Conclusion:Covering the roof of the villa to control seepage is not inherently illegal if it involves routine waterproofing or repairs within the scope of the sale deed and covenants. However, if the defendant has erected additional structures or made unauthorized modifications to the common roof area, such actions are illegal and breach the sale deed restrictions. The primary issue hinges on whether the covering constitutes permissible repair or unauthorized construction; based on the sale deed's explicit prohibition of additional structures, any unauthorized erection is unlawful.
Owning a villa should be a dream, but issues like water seepage can quickly turn it into a nightmare. Imagine this: your villa starts experiencing severe seepage that the defendant—perhaps the builder, seller, or neighbor—cannot control. To protect your property, you cover the roof. However, your sale deed explicitly bars additional structures. Is this action illegal?
This exact concern arises in the query: As per the sale deed additional structure is barred. Due to villa started seepage. Defendant can't control the seepage. Hence Plaintiff coverd the roofe. Whether it is illigal. While specifics vary by case, Indian courts have addressed similar disputes involving sale deeds, seepage, and property modifications. This post breaks down the legal landscape, drawing from consumer court rulings and property law principles. Note: This is general information based on precedents, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Sale deeds often include clauses restricting modifications to preserve the property's original design, ensure structural integrity, and comply with local building regulations. For instance, clauses like 6(b) and 6(c) in some agreements limit alterations, especially in shared or villa projects. Arvinder Singh vs M/s AIPL Ambuja Housing and Urban Infrastructure Ltd.
The complainant is not consumer, as he is owner of 50% of share of above Villa on the basis of registered sale deed dated 26.05.2015. ... complaint especially in view of clause 6(b) and 6(c) of sale d.... Arvinder Singh vs M/s AIPL Ambuja Housing and Urban Infrastructure Ltd.
These restrictions aim to prevent unauthorized constructions that could affect common areas, neighboring properties, or municipal approvals. Covering a roof might be viewed as an additional structure if it's permanent, but temporary protective measures for repairs could be treated differently.
In villa projects, possession handover via sale deed shifts primary responsibility to the owner. The OP handed over possession of the villa on 22.04.2018 and executed registered sale deed dated 23.05.2018 of it in favour of the complainant... V.T. SAMPATH KUMARAN vs M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1772
Post-sale deed, owners typically handle maintenance unless latent defects are proven.
Seepage is rampant in Indian villas due to poor construction, waterproofing failures, or external factors like heavy rains. Courts frequently see complaints about cracks, peeling plaster, fungus, and foul smells from affected areas.
The cracks in the walls of the said villa became very prominent at different places, the cement plaster started peeling off, and due to seepage, a lot of fungus developed in the kitchen cupboards emitting foul smell therefrom... Arvinder Singh vs M/s AIPL Ambuja Housing and Urban Infrastructure Ltd.
Key causes include:- Poor waterproofing: Seepage of water in their terrace flats due to poor quality of water proofing, seepage of water through cracks developed to the external plasting of building. Rafeek Ahamad, vs Sri. N. Surendra Naidu,- Structural issues: The major reinforcement effort, by erecting additional piles had not shown any beneficial results. Thereafter seepage of water formed. The sinking in the midst of the building is visible... Leelamma Joseph vs Heera Constructions (P) Ltd.- Neighboring or common property faults: Developers covenant to maintain common areas upon service charge payments. The Defendant agreed and covenanted, upon payment of service charges by the Plaintiff, to maintain and manage the common property. CHANG CHOR HEONG &ANOR vs PUNCAK KENCANA SDN BHD
If the defendant (e.g., builder) cannot control seepage from common areas, owners may seek remedies under consumer laws or civil suits. However, self-help like roof covering raises questions of legality.
Whether covering the roof is illegal hinges on:1. Nature of the cover: Temporary tarpaulin or repair membrane vs. permanent concrete addition.2. Sale deed terms: Explicit bans apply strictly, but necessity (e.g., preventing further damage) may justify actions.3. Local laws: Municipal approvals needed for structural changes.4. Defendant's role: If seepage originates from their property, they bear liability.
Courts often prioritize safety and allow remedial actions. In dilapidated buildings, urgent repairs are permitted despite restrictions. The columns, load bearing structure and beams on external sides are damaged due to the leakage and seepage of water... Ramnarayan Nathuprasad Pande VS Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1149
However, insurance cases highlight exclusions: Seepage of water was not named in the insured perils, the Opposite Party rightly repudiated the claim. Gopal Dikshit VS United India Insurance Company Ltd. This underscores that unapproved modifications may void warranties or lead to disputes.
In one dispute, a plaintiff suffered seepage for years, securing injunctions and damages. The seepage caused in the Plaintiff's flat is admitted... The Plaintiff has suffered for almost 5 years due to seepage. Sushil Kumar Jain VS Gajender Chopra - 2020 Supreme(Del) 1551
Self-covering might not be illegal per se if it's non-permanent and protective, but it could breach covenants, inviting removal orders or penalties.
If facing uncontrolled seepage:- Notify in writing: Serve legal notice, as in Legal notice dated 7th May, 2010 was served by her on the defendant... KAMLESH BHATTACHARYA VS P. L. KHERA - 2017 Supreme(Del) 488- Consumer forums: File if builder liable pre-sale deed. Post-sale, prove deficiency.- Civil suits: Seek injunctions, damages for mental agony. Damages for tortious claims must be real and proximate... Sushil Kumar Jain VS Gajender Chopra - 2020 Supreme(Del) 1551- Insurance claims: Covered if due to named perils like floods, not mere seepage. Heavy rain cases succeed with evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the loss caused was due to seepage caused by heavy rain fall... National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Chennai VS New Kashmir Arts & Crafts, Rep. by its Partner M. Abdul Majeed Khan - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 266
Municipal intervention possible for dangerous structures. The duty of the Municipal Corporation to ensure safety... Ramnarayan Nathuprasad Pande VS Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1149
Doctrine of lis pendens doesn't bind new owners for unrelated liabilities. KAMLESH BHATTACHARYA VS P. L. KHERA - 2017 Supreme(Del) 488
These illustrate courts' fact-specific approach, favoring evidence like engineer reports.
Seepage disputes are winnable with proof, but prevention via due diligence at purchase is best. For personalized guidance, contact a property lawyer. Stay dry and legally secure!
Word count: ~950. Sources cited for educational purposes.
#VillaSeepage #PropertyLaw #SaleDeed
The cracks in the walls of the said villa became very prominent at different places, the cement plaster started peeling off, and due to seepage, a lot of fungus developed in the kitchen cupboards emitting foul smell therefrom ... The complainant is not consumer, as he is owner of 50% of share of above Villa on the basis of registered sale deed dated 26.05.2015. ... complaint especially in view of clause 6(b) and 6(c) of sale d....
The above said Sale and Purchase Agreement entered by the Defendant is in the standard form prescribed by Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and the Regulation 11(1). ... The Defendant agreed and covenanted, upon payment of service charges by the Plaintiff, to maintain and manage the common property. The Plaintiff paid the service charges to the Defendant as and when the same becomes due and payable. ... In the ....
and the Deed of Mutual Covenants between the Plaintiff and the Defendant both dated 15.4.2004 respectively and House Rules. ... The Defendant agreed and covenanted, upon payment of service charges by the Plaintiff, to maintain and manage the common property. The Plaintiff paid the service charges to the Defendant as and when the same becomes due and payable. ... Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 196....
and the Deed of Mutual Covenants between the Plaintiff and the Defendant both dated 15.4.2004 respectively and House Rules. ... The Defendant agreed and covenanted, upon payment of service charges by the Plaintiff, to maintain and manage the common property. The Plaintiff paid the service charges to the Defendant as and when the same becomes due and payable. ... The above said Sale and Purchase Agreement entered by the D....
the Deed of Mutual Covenants between the Plaintiff and the Defendant both dated 15.4.2004 respectively and House Rules. ... The Defendant agreed and covenanted, upon payment of service charges by the Plaintiff, to maintain and manage the common property. The Plaintiff paid the service charges to the Defendant as and when the same becomes due and payable. ... Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 a....
It is not disputed that the roof is part of the common parts of Hamburg Villa and in the control of the 1 st respondent, and they have the duty to maintain. ... The unauthorized structure on Flat 4A has been removed and there is no evidence on whether the waterproofing membrane on Flat 4A has been damaged when the structure was removed. And the water ponding test was conducted over Flat 4B and the curb. ... It is claimed that, in breach of the Dee....
The OP handed over possession of the villa on 22.04.2018 and executed registered sale deed dated 23.05.2018 of it in favour of the complainant, for which, Rs.190550/- as stamp duty and Rs.25000/- as registration charges and legal expenses was paid. ... The complainant booked Villa No. 16 in “Brigade Palmgrove” and paid Rs.1734474/- on 07.03.2018, Rs.171000/- on 09.03.2018, Rs.1905280/- on 07.04.2018 and Rs.16395801/- on 17.04.2018, total Rs.19054740/- for the villa and Rs.1151815/- for common amenities ....
The major reinforcement effort, by erecting additional piles had not shown any beneficial results. Thereafter seepage of water formed. The sinking in the midst of the building is visible and hence at present the structure is in danger. ... Sale Deed was executed in November 2007 and the complainant was enjoying the possession of the villa. Hence the complainant is entitled for relief claimed for. ... As per the Sa....
After receiving the full and final sale consideration amount, the Sale Deed was registered as per No.BNS-1-12443/2013-14 dt.13.12.2013 and stored in CD.No.BNSD293. ... Seepage of water in their terrace flats due to poor quality of water proofing, seepage of water through cracks developed to the external plasting of building. ... Seepage of water in their terrace flat due to poor quality of water proofing, seepage#HL_END....
The two premises (“Two Premises”) are similar in size save that there is an additional flat roof structure (“Structure”) attached to the external wall of the Lower Premises. ... Reliance has also been placed on S Cheung’s evidence that he had personally carried out measurements and visual inspection at the Structure and consequently, he was able to rule out the Structure being the source of water seepage due to the following matters:- ... ....
Therefore, as per policy terms & conditions, the said claim is repudiated.” Further, existing building was constructed having R:C:C: frame. As the damage caused to the building and contents was due to continuous seepage of water from the basement and since seepage of water is not one of the named perils, the loss/damage is not indemnifiable. The certificates show that the structure was old, continuous seepage water into the foundation and basement corroded the reinforcement steel, reducing the strength of building. Aforesaid two certificates had been filed by the Complainan....
The seepage caused in the Plaintiff's flat is admitted. This led to the passing of order dated 20th October, 2020. Thus, the Plaintiff has suffered for almost 5 years due to seepage. The assessment of damages has been made on the basis of the reports filed by the engineers/architects' evidence.
“The columns, load bearing structure and beams on external sides are damaged due to the leakage and seepage of water. Especially internal passage areas are showing major deterioration which needs urgent attention. At various locations hollow sounding is observed in the columns and beams due to the excessive corrosion of the reinforcement.
Therefore, it is clear that the loss caused was due to seepage caused by heavy rain fall. There are also other documents in the form of news paper reports, weather reports etc. to show that there was in fact very heavy rain during the relevant period in the City of Chennai.
(iii) Legal notice dated 7th May, 2010 was served by her on the defendant which was also not complied with. As per his report cause of seepage was due to drilling work carried out by the appellant/plaintiff. The plaintiff was facing problem of seepage in her floor which according to her was due to improper use of washing machine by the defendant. Her oral requests to the defendant to rectify the defect so that seepage can be stopped, remained unheeded by him. 11. Sh.Chaman Lal, Assistant Engineer, MCD was examined as DW2, as he inspected the property pursu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
