Arya Hamsa Ruling: Why Your Sale Deed Can Open Your Clubhouse to the Project Next Door

The owners of a flat in Arya Hamsa, a JP Nagar 8th Phase apartment complex completed in 2015, watched a second project, Arya Hamsa Grande, rise on the plot next door. Then residents of the new project started using the clubhouse, roads and gates the owners believed were theirs. They went to K-RERA, then the appellate tribunal, then the Karnataka High Court. All three pointed to the same document: the owners' own registered sale deed.

The short answer. In its judgment of 9 July 2026 in RERA Appeal No. 74 of 2025, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the owners "had no exclusive rights over the common areas" and that their 3 November 2015 sale deed expressly consented to use of the roads, clubhouse and entertainment facility "in any phase by any of the Owners of units in the Project". The trade-off: a shared-amenity clause can give you access to facilities built next door, but it also means you cannot keep neighbouring phases out.

What did the Karnataka High Court decide in the Arya Hamsa case?

It dismissed the flat owners' appeal and found no substantial question of law. As reported by LiveLaw, a Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju upheld the orders of K-RERA and the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal allowing residents of Arya Hamsa Grande to use the shared roads, clubhouse and entertainment facilities.

The appeal, filed under Section 58 of the RERA Act, challenged the tribunal's order of 1 August 2025 in Appeal No. (K-REAT) 61/2022. That order had confirmed K-RERA's dismissal of Complaint No. CMP/210402/0007857 on 6 May 2022, as amended on 24 January 2023. The High Court first condoned a 25-day delay in filing the appeal.

The judgment records that both projects were developed by the same developer under separate joint development agreements with different landowners and separate sanction plans, but were built adjacent to each other.

What did the owners' sale deed actually say?

It said the clubhouse sat outside their land and would be shared across phases. The judgment reproduces clauses 1.11 to 1.13 of the 3 November 2015 sale deed, as quoted by the tribunal. Clause 1.11 said the developers were providing "a Club House and Entertainment Facility outside the schedule A Property and common facilities, etc. inside the Schedule A Property including roads, STP, transformer yards, electrical infrastructure, etc."

Clause 1.12 said the common facilities, clubhouse and entertainment facility would be managed and maintained by the association of apartment owners, "with no charges payable to the Developers". Clause 1.13 recorded that the purchaser consented to these being provided "for all owners of units in the project, which may consist of different phases which may be located within or outside the Schedule A Property", and expressly consented to the use of common amenities including the roads, clubhouse and entertainment facility "in any phase by any of the Owners of units in the Project".

The tribunal read these clauses as showing that the clubhouse and entertainment facility given to Arya Hamsa owners were in the other project, Arya Hamsa Grande, while certain amenities for Arya Hamsa Grande owners were in Arya Hamsa. In its words, "the Flat owners of both the projects had given their consent to share the amenities".

Why did the Transfer of Property Act argument fail?

Because the owners did not hold an absolute interest in the shared facilities. The owners argued that the sharing clause was a restriction made void by Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which, as quoted in the judgment, applies where "an interest therein is created absolutely in favour of any person, but the terms of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by him in a particular manner".

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Indu Kakkar v Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, the court said Section 11 voids restrictions on enjoyment only where the transfer creates an absolute interest. It held that the interest the owners relied on "is not created on the flat that has been allotted to them, but on the common facilities such as the club house and other easementary facilities", and that such an interest "is not an absolute interest" and would not attract Section 11.

The court added that the owners themselves agreed to the sharing in the sale deed, a validly executed contract binding on the parties, and that the registered sale deed "concededly, has not been challenged by the Allottees in a Court of law".

Was the sharing clause too vague to enforce?

No, the court held. The owners also argued the clause was void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which, as quoted in the judgment, says agreements "the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void".

The court said that provision "would be inapplicable in a case where a Sale Deed clearly sets out the sale consideration and the transfer and has been duly registered". It noted again that the sale deed had not been challenged in a civil court.

The practical lesson is that a registered sale deed is treated as the settled record of what you bought. If you think a clause in it is unfair or unclear, the time to object is before you sign. The court noted more than once that these owners had not challenged their deed in a civil court.

What did the owners ask K-RERA for, and why did that matter?

They asked for revocation of Arya Hamsa Grande's registration and penalties. The judgment records that the complaint under Section 31 sought revocation and penalties under Sections 60 and 61 for alleged contravention of Sections 4 and 14 of the RERA Act, contending that sharing amenities designed for limited use affected the owners' right to live peacefully in their property.

K-RERA examined the documents, including the sale deed, and found no provision for exclusive use of the common amenities by Arya Hamsa purchasers. It found that the sale deed's recitals "would go contrary to the demand of the Allottees". The tribunal noted that while the developer was a promoter of both projects, the owners were not allottees in Arya Hamsa Grande, and that Arya Hamsa was completed before RERA commenced.

For buyers, the point is that regulatory complaints against a neighbouring project will be tested against your own documents first. Our report on the Raintree Boulevard ruling shows K-RERA taking the same approach when owners objected to later phases on adjoining land.

What should Bengaluru buyers check about shared amenities?

Find out where each amenity sits, who else can use it, and who will run it. The checklist below follows the clauses that decided this case.

1. Locate the clubhouse and major amenities on the plan, and note whether they are inside or outside your project's land.
2. Read every clause on common facilities for words such as phases, all owners of units, or within or outside the property.
3. Ask the developer which other projects or phases will share the clubhouse, roads and gates.
4. Check who will manage and maintain shared facilities, and whether charges are payable to the developer.
5. Ask for the sanction plans of adjacent land the developer controls, and any planned future phases.
6. Raise objections to sharing clauses in writing before registration, and keep the developer's reply.
7. Keep a copy of your registered sale deed with the association, since it may decide future disputes.

Once a project is complete, how common areas pass to residents matters too. Our guide to common area handover to the owners' association explains that process.

What does this mean for buyers in phased or adjacent projects?

It means the boundary of your project on the plan may not be the boundary of your amenities. In this case the two projects had separate land parcels, separate landowners, separate joint development agreements and separate sanction plans, yet the sale deed tied their facilities together. On the tribunal's reading of the deed, the clubhouse provided to Arya Hamsa owners was itself in the neighbouring project.

That cuts both ways. A sharing clause can give you a clubhouse your own building could never fit, and under this deed the association, not the developer, was to run the shared facilities without charges payable to the developer. But it also means more people using the same clubhouse, facilities and roads, including residents of phases that did not exist when you bought.

So before booking in a project where the developer controls adjoining land, ask how many units in total will share each facility once every phase is complete, and whether the clubhouse was sized for that number. Get the answer in writing, and compare it with the clauses in your agreement and sale deed.

Frequently asked questions

Can flat owners stop a neighbouring project from using their clubhouse?

Not in the Arya Hamsa case. The Karnataka High Court held that the owners had no exclusive rights over the common areas and that their registered sale deed expressly consented to use of the roads, clubhouse and entertainment facility in any phase by any owners of units in the project.

Why did the Transfer of Property Act not help the owners?

The court held Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act voids restrictions only where an absolute interest is transferred. The owners' interest in the clubhouse and other common facilities was not an absolute interest, as it was not created on the flat allotted to them, so Section 11 did not apply.

Was the amenity-sharing clause void for uncertainty?

No. The court held that Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act would be inapplicable where a sale deed clearly sets out the sale consideration and the transfer and has been duly registered. It also noted that the owners had not challenged the registered sale deed in a civil court.

Who manages the shared clubhouse under the Arya Hamsa sale deed?

Clause 1.12 of the 3 November 2015 sale deed, as reproduced in the judgment, said the common facilities, clubhouse and entertainment facility would be managed and maintained by the association of apartment owners and made available to them, with no charges payable to the developers.

Last updated 2026-10-22. PropNewz Team.