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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more