Andhra Pradesh Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987-Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC- suit for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner from parking car in the stilt area of the complex -he is the absolute owner and possessor -the recitals and description of the schedule property in the sale deeds of the parties would reveal that while he has got car parking rights in the stilt area, the petitioner does not have such a right.- objection raised - suit not maintainable as A.P.A (PC&O)Act - under Section 24 of the Act, selling or leasing out or misuse of common areas is prohibited and therefore, the claim of the respondent/plaintiff that he has purchased the parking area through registered document dated 29.12.2010 is not sustainable and that as the car parking area forms part of common area, the petitioner is entitled to use the same by parking the car notwithstanding the sale deed does not contain the fact that the parking area is allotted to him. - filed IA for rejection of suit - Trial court dismissed the IA- whether the common area in the apartment premises could be sold or not being a mixed question of fact and law needs to be adjudicated only after trial. The lower Court has further opined that as the provisions of the Act have not expressly or impliedly barred institution of civil suit in respect of any such common areas or questions with regard to such areas, the petitioner is not entitled to question the order under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. - their lordships of Telangan High court confirmed the same.- 2015 Telangan msklawreports



The respondent has filed above-mentioned suit for perpetual
injunction restraining the petitioner from parking car in the stilt
area of the complex known as Laxmi Nivas bearing municipal
No.11-13-116/24, admeasuring 500 sq.yards, situated at Road 
No.6, Ramakrishnapuram, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District. It is
his pleaded case that he is the absolute owner and possessor of
flat bearing No.202, Laxmi Nivas, including common areas and
balcony along with car parking and undivided share of 49 sq.yards
in the said premises and that the petitioner is the owner of flat
No.201, second floor, admeasuring 1115 sq.feet in the same
complex without right to park his car. The respondent averred that
the recitals and description of the schedule property in the sale
deeds of the parties would reveal that while he has got car parking
rights in the stilt area, the petitioner does not have such a right.

 The petitioner has filed written statement, raising various
pleas on merits and also the plea that the suit is not maintainable
as it is against the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Apartments
(Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 (for short
the Act). After filing the written statement, the petitioner has filed
I.A.No.318 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of
the plaint. The main premise on which this application is filed is
that under Section 24 of the Act, selling or leasing out or misuse of
common areas is prohibited and therefore, the claim of the
respondent/plaintiff that he has purchased the parking area
through registered document dated 29.12.2010 is not sustainable
and that as the car parking area forms part of common area, the
petitioner is entitled to use the same by parking the car
notwithstanding the sale deed does not contain the fact that the
parking area is allotted to him.
Trial court dismissed the I.A.
whether the common area in the apartment premises 
could be sold or not being a mixed question of fact and law needs
to be adjudicated only after trial. The lower Court has further
opined that as the provisions of the Act have not expressly or
impliedly barred institution of civil suit in respect of any such
common areas or questions with regard to such areas, the
petitioner is not entitled to question the order under Order VII Rule
11(d) CPC.

 As rightly observed by the lower Court
that the provisions of the Act and the effect of recitals in the sale
deed of the petitioner need to be adjudicated only after recording of
evidence. Any such conclusion arrived at the stage of consideration
of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC would amount to premature
adjudication and the same is not desirable in the absence of
evidence on record. In the absence of any provision under the Act
expressly barring the suit, the lower Court has rightly dismissed
the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint.

      In view of the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any
merit in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed. - 2015 Telangan msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more