Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ms. Sandra Lesley Ann Bartels, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.3275/2010 by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, which partly decreed her suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The appellant had purchased an apartment bearing No.103 on the first floor of the building 'Revelstoke' at Bangalore, along with an undivided share of land (17.42% or 853.80 sq.ft.) as per the sale deed dated 3.3.2004. The sale deed also granted her a car parking space, a two-wheeler parking space, and the right to use all common areas, including the terrace. The respondents, who were owners of other apartments in the same building, allegedly obstructed her use of the terrace and parking space. The trial court partly decreed the suit, granting a declaration of her right to use the terrace as a common area but denying her the right to a specific car parking space. The appellant challenged this denial. The High Court, after hearing arguments, allowed the appeal, holding that the sale deed clearly granted the appellant a car parking space and the right to use the terrace as a common area. The court set aside the trial court's finding on the parking space and decreed the suit in full, granting the appellant the reliefs sought.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Interpretation of Sale Deed - Right to Common Areas - The court interpreted the sale deed to determine the plaintiff's right to use the terrace as a common area and to a car parking space. The sale deed specifically included the terrace as a common area and granted a car parking space. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to these rights as per the terms of the sale deed. (Paras 3-5) B) Property Law - Joint Development Agreement - Rights of Purchaser - The court considered the joint development agreement between the landowner and developer, which reserved certain apartments for the owner. However, the plaintiff's rights as a purchaser from the developer were governed by the sale deed, not the joint development agreement. The court held that the plaintiff's rights cannot be restricted by the joint development agreement. (Paras 3-4) C) Civil Procedure - Appeal under Section 96 CPC - Scope - The court examined the scope of a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and held that it can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact if perverse. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to use the terrace of the apartment building as a common area and to a car parking space as per the sale deed.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 7.10.2013 in O.S.No.3275/2010 is set aside. The suit is decreed in full, declaring the plaintiff's right to use the terrace as a common area and to a car parking space, and granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with those rights.
Law Points
- Interpretation of sale deed
- right to common areas
- terrace as common area
- parking rights
- easementary rights
- joint development agreement
- Section 96 CPC
