LAKSHYA APARTMENTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. T KANNIYARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the above three original side appeals.

(2.) O. S. A. NO. 28 of 2004 has arisen from the dismissal of Tr. C. S. No. 719 of 2001, a suit for permanent injunction, while the other two appeals, namely O. S. A. Nos. 82 of 2005 and 267 of 2008, have arisen from the judgment of the learned Single Judge made in C. S. No. 570 of 1998, a suit for partition.

(3.) THE plaintiff in Tr. C. S. No. 719 of 2001 has filed the said suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction, stating that the plaintiff is an Association consisting of members, who are the owners of the apartments at the Flat situate at Nos. 12 and 13, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Madras-34 under the name of Mahalakshmi Flats; that the plaintiff association, numbering 46, purchased the undivided shares on various dates from the defendants 1 and 2 through the power of attorney agent S. Palanisamy, who is the proprietor of the third defendant; that the plaintiff association also entered into an agreement for construction of the apartments as per the sanctioned plan with the third defendant; that the defendants 1 to 3 have not given any copy of the approved plan accorded to them by the fourth defendant; that the total constructed area purchased by the plaintiff association is 33,060 sq. ft. ; that the vacant space on which the apartments were constructed should have to be 22,040 sq. ft. which is 9 grounds and 400 sq. ft. ; that the plaintiff association have purchased the entire area of 22,040 sq. ft. by way of undivided shares and the defendants 1 to 3 do not have any right, claim or interest over the same; that the defendants 1 to 3 in connivance with the 4th defendant is trying to put up further construction in the suit schedule property, which is owned exclusively by the members of the plaintiff association; that the third defendant by letter, dated 23. 5. 1994 asked the plaintiff association a no objection certificate for ratification of the deviations and also for further construction, which is neither permissible in law nor as per the regulations and rules of the M. M. D. A. ; and that on 26. 8. 1994, the third defendant attempted to trespass into the plaintiff association members' property forcibly and attempted to dump construction materials in the property belonging to the plaintiff association and hence the plaintiff has filed the said suit.