Children Have A Fundamental Right To Play Games And Apartment Owners Association Cannot Restrict The Same Arbitrarily: Karnataka HC
It is entirely in the fitness of things that while striking the right chord, the Karnataka High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Sangeetha Agarwal v Esteem Gardenia Apartment Owners Association in Regular First Appeal No. 1826 of 2021 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: NC: 2026:KHC:30529 that was pronounced on June 16, 2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that children have a fundamental right to play games and apartment owners’ association cannot restrict the same arbitrarily. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar made the key observation while quashing a residents association’s decision to prohibit children from using the playground in the apartment. It merits noting that the Bench was unequivocal in holding that, “Playing games by children is a fundamental right of children and prohibiting the children from playing takes away their overall health.”
By the way, the Karnataka High Court was hearing a plea that had been filed by two residents of Esteem Gardenia Apartment that was situated at Sahakara Nagar in Bengaluru challenging such unjustified restrictions. We need to note that besides the restriction that was imposed on the use of playground, the plea also raised another vital issue pertaining to the blocking of stairway by placing flowerpots. What also must be taken into account is that the Trial Court agreed that the flower pots were placed in a common area but dismissed the suit on the grounds that no illegality of the placement of plants was proved. The petitioner then appealed to the High Court from where he finally got relief!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs calling in question the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2021, passed by the X Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), in O.S.No.9969/2015, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant/association for the relief of mandatory injunction and for damages came to be dismissed.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “The defendant/association is said to have been formed by the owners of the apartments in various blocks in Esteem Gardenia Apartment situated at Sahakara Nagar, ‘E’ Block, Bengaluru, which is formed with a consideration of defining process of community living within the said layout and all the members are said to be required to conduct themselves in accordance with the bye-laws and in the way of being socially acceptable and considerate to fellow residence. The plaintiffs have further stated that they were residing on the 2nd floor in Primrose block, Esteem Gardenia as tenants from September 2008 till May 2010 and on 31.05.2010, the plaintiff No.2 purchased the flat No.101 on the 1st floor of the said block under a registered sale deed dated 31.05.2010.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 while elaborating further that, “It is stated that they were regularly paying the maintenance amount and other charges and also following the code of conduct which provides aspects like the owners/residents are not permitted to place any furnitures, packages, vehicles etc., in the common lobbies, vestibules, stairways, elevators both common and limited except while in normal transit through them and there should be no obstruction that prevent the free flow of traffic in the corridors and they are required to place closed shoe-racks outside the doors without causing obstruction to other residents and in case of any objection by any residents of the same floor the issue will be decided by the members of the Board and will be binding on all. It is further provided in the bye-laws that the residents may place any objects for improvement of aesthetics of the lobby and in case of any dispute in this regard the members of Board have right to decide the same for removal of such objects. It is stated that inspite of clear prohibition in the bye-laws there are pots being placed in the stairways of Primose block, which make the stairways narrow and difficult for free walk and when the pots are watered the stairways become slippery causing risk for the users. The plaintiffs have further stated that on 29.08.2012, when the plaintiff No.1 was using the stairways coming from terrace to 3rd floor had fallen, due to which she suffered serious fracture injury and underwent surgery on 30.08.2012 and 13.10.2012 and further surgeries are required for removal of implants. It is stated that they have spent huge amount for the treatment.”
Further, the Bench discloses in para 5 stating that, “It is further submitted that after this incident the pots were removed for few months but thereafter once again they were kept on stairways and though the plaintiffs had informed the defendant about the unfortunate incident and injuries suffered by plaintiff No.1 the defendant failed to remove the pots which block the easy usage of stairways thereby demonstrating the negligence of the defendant. Inspite of their repeated complaints about this issue, the defendant/association is not able to redress and remove the obstruction. Inspite of issuance of notice the defendant has not removed the pots and the defendant is alleged to be trying to force the plaintiffs to withdraw the notice by discussing it in the Association General Body meeting.”
As things stands, the Bench observes in para 6 that, “The defendant has filed written statement and contended that the pots were not placed on stairways by any individual apartment owner, but based on the majority decision of the association pots were kept. However, the pots were removed by the defendant after filing of the suit. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.”
Truly speaking, the Bench then mentions in para 7 that, “Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:
ISSUES
1) Do plaintiffs prove that the suit area is a common area meant for use and occupation of the suit apartment residents?
2) Do plaintiffs further prove that the defendants have illegally placed pots at stairways of suit apartment and it causing inconvenience to them?
3) Do plaintiffs further prove that it can seek mandatory injunction against the defendant not to allow others to put any obstruction on the stairways of suit premises?
4) Do plaintiffs further prove that the circular notice resolution of defendant issued by playing of football in suit apartment playground is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs?
5) Do plaintiffs are entitled for damages of Rs.1,00,000/-?
6) Do plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for?
7) What order or decree?”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 8 that, “In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW-1 and plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW-2 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P-1 to P-52. The defendant has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of its defence except one documentary evidence marked as Ex.D-1.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 9 that, “The Trial Court, after appreciating both oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed this present appeal.”
Do further note, the Bench then also notes in para 11 that, “Though trial Court answered issue No.(1) in the affirmative that the plaintiffs have proved that suit area is common area meant for use and occupation of the suit apartment residents but failed to prove that defendant has illegally kept pots at stairways of suit apartment and causing inconvenience to them. Hence, dismissed the suit.”
As a corollary, the Bench then points out in para 12 that, “Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal by raising various grounds and argued in consonance with the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum that the stairway is a common area for all the users and owners of the flats in the apartment. If pots are kept and watered making the floor wet and slippery, there would not be any free movement. It is also submitted that plaintiff No.1 slipped on the said stairway while going to third floor sustained fractured injuries and spent a huge amount for medical treatment. This occurred only because of keeping the pots on the stairway and watering them caused the stairway to become slippery. Hence, without considering this, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit.”
What’s more, the Bench lays bare in para 13 disclosing that, “Further, it is submitted that the defendant/association has prohibited children for playing football and other games in the playground situated in the apartment, which restricts the mental and physical development of children. Therefore, such a restriction imposed by the defendant/association is a violation of child rights. Hence, without any reasonable grounds, the defendant/association has imposed restrictions on the children from playing games in the playground. Thus, it is submitted that the action of the defendant/association in this regard is highly illegal and arbitrary, which has not properly considered by the Trial Court. Hence, prays to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by allowing the appeal.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 21 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “There is no averment in the written statement of the defendant as to which games are allowed to be played by the children and which are not. Therefore, the averment made in the written statement is vague in nature and without giving any clarification. On the guise, the defendant is not supposed to prohibit the children from playing games in the play area. Playing games by children is a fundamental right of children and prohibiting the children from playing takes away their overall health. Hence, it is hereby directed that the defendant/association reconsider its decision, which was taken earlier in this regard and with the consent of the majority of the residents of the apartment, shall take a decision as to which games are to be allowed and which are not allowed in the play area. However, by stopping one or two games, the children should not be deprived of playing games in the play area. The defendant shall specify the games to be played in the play area after taking confidence of the members of the association. The defendant/association is directed to take decision in this regard within a period of three months from today.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 22 that, “Therefore, I answer point Nos.(i) and (ii) in the Affirmative and point No.(iii) in the Partly Affirmative. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed by decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 23 that, “In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Regular First Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 27.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.9969/2015 by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-26), is hereby set aside.
iii. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed by mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendant/association shall remove the pots placed in the stairways and other common areas which are meant for common use by residents of the flats in the apartment.
iv. It is also hereby decreed by granting a perpetual injunction that the defendant/association shall not keep any pots or any materials on the stairways and corridors, which are common areas meant for use of the owners of all flats/members in the apartment.
v. It is also hereby directed by mandatory injunction that the defendant/association shall take a decision by majority as to which games are to be allowed and which are not allowed for children to play within a period of three months from today by convening general body meeting.
vi. Draw decree accordingly.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs’, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Author Bio
