VIJAYAN V. JOHN Vs. POULACHAN MANIAMKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RSA No.331/2020 has been filed by the 4th defendant and RSA No.78/2021 has been filed by defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S. No.70/2009 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. (Parties would hereafter be referred as per their status before the trial court).

(2.) Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as well as for mandatory injunction. 1st defendant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of building construction in the name and style 'Skyline Builders'. Plaintiff purchased duplex flat in the multistoried apartment 'Skyline Topaz ' at Kathrikadavu, Kadavanthra. As per the approved plan the total car parking area provided is 123 . But defendants 1 and 2 allotted car parking space different from the plan given to the plaintiff. Many common free space shown in the earlier plan were sold for car parking, for which defendants have no manner of right. As per the approved plan obtained from the Corporation on application by the plaintiff it has come out that many free space shown in the earlier plan is converted to parking space in the approved plan. Each car parking is selling for Rs.2.00 lakhs. Defendants have no right to sell more than 123 car parking space. But the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to sell more than 123 car parking area by converting the common area into car parking in violation of the approved plan. The defendants 1 and 2 are preparing a revised plan for converting free area in the approved plan to parking area. There are 96 apartments in the plaint schedule 'Skyline Topaz '. So the suit was filed seeking for a permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men from converting and selling common free space shown in the approved plan No.KRP 2/122/05 of the plaint schedule property and violating the conditions of the approved plan and restraining the 3rd defendant Corporation from approving any revised plan which will convert common free space for any other purpose.

(3.) Subsequently, plaint was amended alleging that after the institution of the suit, defendants made 9 car parking in the plaint 'A ' schedule property violating the approved plan converting free space to car parking and sold to apartment owners. The defendants 1 and 2 have no right to sell common free space. 9 car parking made violating the approved plan shown in the sketch attached in the commission report is separately scheduled as 'B ' schedule. Direction is further sought to restore the free space converted into car park by a mandatory injunction. A declaration is further sought to the effect that conversion and sale of common free space in 'A ' schedule property is illegal.