Skip to main content

Kerala High Court bolsters flat owners’ registration rights

A simple directive issued by the Kerala high court has brought into effect the right of owners to register their apartments individually, thereby tremendously enhancing sale ability of apartments.

The directive, issued by Justice A Muhamed Mustaque on a petition by J K Pearl Apartment Owners Association at Pulleppady, also enables setting up a basic framework of rules regarding right of apartment owners on common facilities and maintenance.

In a petition filed through advocate P B Sahasranaman, the association secretary P Krishna Das questioned the registration department's denial of registration of apartments individually as per Kerala Apartment Ownership Act of 1983.

The Act provides for ownership of individual apartment in a building and make such apartment heritable and transferable property. The practice now is to register apartments under the Registration Act, which often leads to a situation where the exact rights of an individual apartment owner are not clearly specified. 

Additionally, the Act facilitates registration of a declaration of the apartment, which describes the common areas and facilities, value of the property and each apartment, percentage of rights of each apartment owner on common facilities and purposes, including voting; restrictions of use, votes required to rebuild, repair, restore, or sell the property; and any other aspect regarding ownership of the apartment. 

The Act provides that in all registration offices, a book called 'Register of Declarations and Deeds of Apartments' should be maintained, along with an index. Through an affidavit, the inspector general of registration claimed that no such register has been provided to the registrar and that government hasn't provided any guidelines on it. 

Declining to agree, Justice Mustaque held, "Every association has a right to register the association in accordance with the Act. The rights of apartment owners forming association and carry out the objectives in terms of the Act cannot be defeated for the reason that the government failed to provide any register." 

The court ordered the government to provide register to all sub-registrars for registering as per the Act within three months. Further, the court directed inspector general of registration to order sub registrars to allow registration as per the Act and record it in the Book One kept as per Registration Act until the government provides registers.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/High-Court-bolsters-flat-owners-registration-rights/articleshow/45600935.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more