Moreover, a keen look into Ex.A5 diagram, it is seen that all car parkings slots mentions the names of the respective owners thereof. As it was stated by the plaintiff, originally car slot No.9 was allotted to the plaintiff V.S. Ramadas his name finds place in slot No.9, marked in green colour. Similarly, Flat No.2 2 and 3 which was allotted to the 2nd defendant bears his name. In all probability, this slot No.1 also should have borne the name as Robin Singh which had been clearly struck with blue ball point pen. The second defendant in support of his contention has marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, a thorough perusal of which shows that in the construction agreement in clause No.12.6, it is stated that "1 covered car park will be allotted". Similarly, in Ex.B2 also the construction agreement in favour of the 2nd defendant clause No.12.6 mentions "2 covered car park will be allotted". Therefore, the defendants have probabilised that slot No.1 also was allotted to them. In the circumstances, when the neighbouring slots 2 & 3 falling in one line was also allotted to the second defendant. Therefore, the appellant finding fault with the judgment of the trial judge cannot be countenanced."
