Judgment Admit. Notice made returnable forthwith. Notice waived by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission. Perused records and the Judgment. 2. The Appellants have filed a suit against the Respondents who are Builder-Developer for declaration and injunction. The Respondents have constructed a building consisting of residential premises. The Plaintiffs own one flat in the said building. The flat owners in the building have formed a Society. The Society is registered. In the suit, a dispute is in respect of area of car parking in the Society. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appeal is filed by the Original Plaintiffs. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that though the Trial Court has held that the Respondents are bound to provide a car parking under the stilt and stair-case of the building, they are trying to sell the same illegally. The issue regarding car parking space under the stilt and/ or in the basement of the building is answered in affirmative. The Trial Court gave a finding that the Plaintiffs have no locus standi to file a suit and the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any prohibitory injunction. He submits that the suit is wrongly dismissed on this count alone. Learned Counsel Mr. Prabhawalkar for the Appellants submits that while determining the claim of the Plaintiffs, the Trial Court has wrongly relied on para 8 of the Judgment in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand Private Ltd vs. Panchali CHS Ltd. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 536 . He points out that in para 8 of the said Judgment, the Apex Court has given a summary of findings of the High Court. Learned Counsel submits that the Respondents have sent a letter dated 7th November, 2006. The said letter is marked as Exhibit "C" to the plaint. In that letter, the Respondents have given implied threat that no cars will be allowed to park in the open area or enter the basement without a parking sticker. Therefore, the Plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit against the Respondents. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposes the Appeal. He argued that the Trial Court has rightly held that the Plaintiffs have no locus to file a suit. The Society is already registered and the Plaintiffs are the members of the said Society. Therefore, the Plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit against the Respondents. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposes the Appeal. He argued that the Trial Court has rightly held that the Plaintiffs have no locus to file a suit. The Society is already registered and the Plaintiffs are the members of the said Society. Therefore, they ought to have filed a suit either through Society or they should have impleaded the Society as a party to the suit as Defendants. Thus, for non-joinder of a proper and necessary party, the suit was rightly dismissed. He further submitted that all the affairs in respect of the suit building are now transferred by the Respondents in favour of the Society and the Respondents have no interest at present in the suit building. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Respondents have handed over all the affairs of the management of the building in favour of the Society. Learned Counsel submits that the Respondents, therefore, did no want to disturb or did not interfere in the affairs of the management of the Society. Hence, the Appeal be dismissed. 5. The issues framed by the Trial Court and the findings thereon are reproduced as follows:- Issues on the part of the Defendant to provide Findings 1. Do Plaintiffs prove that it is mandatory In the affirmative open space under the stilt and stair case of the building for parking purpose? 2. Do Plaintiffs prove that Defendant illegally trying to sell dispose of car parking spaces, under the stilt and basement of the In the affirmative building to deprive the Plaintiff's right to occupy the car parking spaces? 3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction as prayed? In the negative 4. Does Defendant prove that Plaintiffs have no locus to file the suit? In the affirmative 5. What Decree and order? As per final order Thus, issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided in the affirmative. However, issue Nos.3 and 4 are held against the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit was dismissed. Hence, in the Appeal, the challenge is given to the negative finding of those issues. The point of locus is required to be considered. 6. I formulate the points of determination as follows : Points of determination Findings 1. Whether the Plaintiffs have locus to file a suit or not? Yes 2. Therefore, the suit was dismissed. Hence, in the Appeal, the challenge is given to the negative finding of those issues. The point of locus is required to be considered. 6. I formulate the points of determination as follows : Points of determination Findings 1. Whether the Plaintiffs have locus to file a suit or not? Yes 2. Whether the Plaintiffs have entitled to an order of injunction or not? Yes 3. Whether the order passed by the Trial Court is to be set aside? Yes 7. It is an admitted fact that the Respondents have constructed the suit building. The Plaintiffs are the flat owners of one flat in the suit building. The Society of the residents is registered on 11th July, 2006. Till today the conveyance is not taken place. If flat owners are the members of the registered Society then any dispute related to the Society is required to be raised, fought or sorted out through the Society. In such litigants the Society is a proper and necessary party. In the present case, the letter dated 7th November, 2006 is a real cause of action for filing the suit. The letter is admittedly written by the Respondents. The letter is not addressed to the Society or the Chairman of the Society but it is addressed to the home owners. Thus, the letter is addressed to a flat owner in his/her personal capacity. Though the issue is in respect of the car parking space which is to be used and accommodated of the land of the Society, the contents mentioned in the letter are applicable to the flat purchaser individually or independently. In the letter, the Respondents have communicated that if at all the flat owners have not paid fully for the basement parking, then they shall make payment of balance amount and if the payment is fully paid then the flat owner are directed to collect stickers from the Respondents. In the said letter, there was a specific warning that a car without stickers would not be allowed to park in the open area or basement is mentioned in the letter. This warning is definitely against an individual flat owner. Therefore, the Appellants have every right to come to the Court and has locus to file the suit. Accordingly, the issue no.1 is answered in the affirmative. This warning is definitely against an individual flat owner. Therefore, the Appellants have every right to come to the Court and has locus to file the suit. Accordingly, the issue no.1 is answered in the affirmative. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the reliance placed in para 8 of the Judgment in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand Private Ltd. (supra) was not correct. No such issue of locus of the flat owners is discussed in the said para. Hence, the Judgment is not applicable on the issues. Thus, the finding of the Trial Court on the point of the locus is turned down. 8. The Society was registered on 11th July, 2006. If the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents are accepted that after registration of the Society, the Respondents have handed over all the affairs of the management in respect of the suit building to the Society, then there was no reason to the Respondent to issue such a letter dated 7th November, 2006 to the flat owners. The act of sending this letter reveals that there may be possible interference by the Respondents as apprehended by the Appellants in the suit. Therefore, the injunction in favour of the Appellants is required to be granted. The point of determination no.2 i.e. declaration and injunction is answered in affirmative. Point no.3 is answered in the affirmative. 9. Thus, the order passed by the Trial Court of dismissal of the suit is set aside. Accordingly, the suit is decreed against Respondents in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). The Appeal is allowed in above terms. 10. Learned Counsel for the Respondents prays for stay of this order. Considering the nature of the suit and the prayers made against the Respondents, prayer for stay is rejected. 11. Civil Application No.4969 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of.