Archive · 26 Aug 2026
Karnataka High Court Upholds Shared Apartment Amenities Agreement
Two apartment projects were built next to each other by the same developer.
Some facilities were planned for residents of both projects to use.
Two owners said the facilities should belong only to their project.
The Karnataka RERA authorities rejected their complaint.
The Karnataka High Court also rejected their appeal.
The court said the registered sale deeds clearly described the shared arrangement.
This means buying a flat does not always give someone exclusive use of every facility nearby.
Buyers should carefully read their legal documents before purchasing.
The dispute involved adjoining projects Arya Hamsa and Arya Hamsa Grande, developed by the same developer.
Two Arya Hamsa owners argued that certain common facilities should be exclusive to their project.
Karnataka RERA and its Appellate Tribunal rejected the homeowners’ complaint before the High Court dismissed their appeal.
The High Court relied on registered sale deeds that expressly allowed certain amenities to be shared.
The ruling advises buyers to check sale deeds and other contractual documents before purchasing a flat.
- Who
- Two owners from the Arya Hamsa apartment project, the developer, Karnataka RERA, and the Karnataka High Court.
- What
- The Karnataka High Court upheld an arrangement allowing certain amenities to be shared between two adjoining apartment projects.
- Where
- The case was decided by the Karnataka High Court and concerned the Arya Hamsa and Arya Hamsa Grande projects.
- Why
- The court found that the buyers’ registered sale deeds clearly provided for shared use of the facilities.
Homeowners’ Position
Developer and Court’s Position
Exclusive use of amenities
Homeowners’ Position
The two Arya Hamsa owners argued that the common facilities were intended exclusively for residents of their project.
Developer and Court’s Position
The developer’s arrangement allowed certain facilities to be shared with the adjoining Arya Hamsa Grande project.
Legal validity of sharing
Homeowners’ Position
The homeowners argued that the arrangement violated Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and was uncertain under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act.
Developer and Court’s Position
The High Court rejected these arguments, holding that apartment ownership does not automatically create exclusive rights over every amenity and that the registered sale deeds clearly recorded the shared-use terms.
Effect of buyer consent
Homeowners’ Position
The homeowners challenged the shared arrangement despite the terms in their purchase documents.
Developer and Court’s Position
The court emphasized that buyers who accept the benefits of an agreement cannot later reject obligations they accepted in the same agreement.
- Projects involved
- Arya Hamsa and the adjoining Arya Hamsa Grande
- Initial complaint
- Two Arya Hamsa owners challenged the shared-facility arrangement before Karnataka RERA.
- Earlier decisions
- Karnataka RERA and the RERA Appellate Tribunal rejected the homeowners’ claims.
- High Court outcome
- The Karnataka High Court dismissed the homeowners’ appeal.
- Key document
- The registered sale deeds expressly provided for sharing certain amenities.
- Legal principles
- The ruling considered consent, estoppel, and the principle that a party cannot accept an agreement’s benefits while rejecting its obligations.
- Buyer guidance
- Prospective buyers should review sale deeds and contractual documents to determine whether amenities are shared with other projects or phases.