K RAHEJA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN AND ANOTHER Vs. RAHEJA RESIDENCY APARTMENT OWNERS APEX BODY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CLUB HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants Nos.1 and 2 before the trial court are in appeal challenging a common order passed under two interlocutory applications, of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: Appellant No.1 had entered into an agreement dated 16.11.1988 with Appellant No.2 to develop land measuring 3,55,490 sq.ft. into apartment complexes. THE appellants, as already stated, are the defendants before the trial court. In terms of the agreement the appellants sold the undivided interest in land, corresponding to individual apartments, to the prospective purchasers of apartments in the various blocks of apartments, under substantially identical terms and conditions. Respondents Nos.1 to 7, are the plaintiffs, they are the several associations comprising of members who are purchasers of the apartments aforesaid. THEy have sought for the relief of a declaration that the appellants have no right to form or allot any parking places on the ground floor surface area and between the compound wall and the peripheral roads and in any other common areas located in the suit schedule property. THEy have also sought for injunctory reliefs in this regard. Interlocutory applications were filed seeking temporary injunction. I.A.No.2 was filed to restrain the appellants from forming or allotting can parking areas in the areas aforesaid and I.A.No.3 was filed to restrain, respondent No.8, herein, the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as ?BMP? for short) from granting any permission to the appellants to form car parking areas as aforesaid. THE applications were allowed. THE appellants have challenged the same.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the appellants that the trial court has overlooked the fact that the earmarking of car parking spaces and allotment of the same is not building activity. The endeavour by the trial court to examine whether the formation of the parking spaces was duly sanctioned is hence irrelevant. Reliance is placed on the case of J. Bhawarilal v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore and others ? (1989) 2 KAR.L.J.198 to contend that sanction of plan is required only if a building is erected.