S SRIDHAR Vs. S SIVASHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for interim injunction to restrain the respondents and their men from interfering with the applicants peaceful possession and enjoyment of the common areas of the land described fully in the schedule to the Judge's Summons, especially interfering with the plaintiffs access to all common amenities and facilities, including the toilets and a room in the ground floor rear portion; and interfering with the plaintiffs right to make use of the common area to construct, at their cost, 2 covered car parks as stipulated in their Sale Deed dated 04.04.2005 pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) Brief facts of the case of the applicant is as follows : The applicant purchased an undivided share in the land measuring 1800.82 sq.ft. in the total extent of land measuring 4463 sq.ft. from the first and second defendants vide sale deed dated 04.04.2005. The sale deed also indicate that the vendor has right to put up construction in the first floor with maximum super built up area of 2685 sq.ft. above the existing ground floor building with the full rights of ownership inclusive of common amenities and all common usages free from all encumbrances. Similarly, it is also agreed between the vendor and the purchasers that they shall have right to put up construction to an extent of 2685 sq.ft. super builtup area covering the entire first floor over and above the existing building on the A schedule land and the sale is along with such rights in favour of the purchasers. The plaintiffs are provided with two covered car parking one behind the other in the ground floor area and the costs and expenses relating to the alteration and other works as required to be carried out in the frontage of the ground floor portion shall be done by the purchasers and the vendors in the common areas and common amenities shall be borne by the vendors, the other coowner Mrs.Umadevi and the purchasers in the ratio of 59.65 : 40.35 in accordance with their respective land holding. It is also agreed between the parties that in the event of either of the parties deciding to sell their share and interest in schedule A property or any portion thereof, together with rights attached thereto and the proportionate constructed area, the other party shall be given preference to purchase such property.

(3.) It is the contention of the defendants that the suit itself is not maintainable. It is submitted that the sale in favour of his wife is only in order to clear the bank loan. As the applicants failed to purchase the remaining extent of 2/3rd share, he has sold the property to his wife. Further, several years prior to the sale,the third defendant had built the toilet and store room slightly removed from the larger building in the ground floor. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff specifically excludes ground floor buildings. In fact, the applicants are only entitled to 150 sq.ft. for parking their two cars, which already has RCC roof. The cars of the applicants are long and hence, two cars could not be parked. The relief of the applicants for enclosed car shed, if put up, would consume large open space and the third defendant's cars cannot be parked there. In the year 2016, there were exchange of notices and as per the applicants even parking 3 cars is a hindrance to the free passage. Therefore, the contentions of the applicants is not maintainable. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this application.