Menu
CB Real Estate Review of SJR Watermark
SJR Watermark

SJR Watermark review: SJR Watermark - Issues 1

L
Author of the review
9:33 am EST
Verified customer This complaint was posted by a verified customer. Learn more
Featured review
This review was chosen algorithmically as the most valued customer feedback.

The sale agreement of SJR Watermark (by SJR Group, SJR Prime Corp) has unreasonable clauses for RIGHT TO REBUILD:

http://www.sjrgroup.com
http://www.watermarkhomes.in
http://www.primecorp.co

Issue:
An additional area during rebuild (anytime) will not be given to new apartment owners.

Please read Section 14.2

If the sanctioned area is more, the additional area shall accrue to the benefit of the Vendors and Builder, subject they proportionately bearing the cost of the construction.

Here is a complete section 14:

14. RIGHT TO REBUILD:

14.1) In the event of destruction of buildings in `WATERMARK by SJR PRIME
CORP' in Schedule `A' Property or portions thereof, irrespective of
such destruction is due to natural calamities, rioting, fire, inundation of
water or natural deterioration, terrorists activities, due to age or for
any reason whatsoever nature, the respective owners of the buildings shall
have the right to put up the respective spaces/floors in the place now
situated subject to sanction of the required plan from the concerned
authorities, as such the Purchaser/s shall have the right to put up only
the Schedule `C' Apartment as per the sanctioned plan.

14.2) If the total area sanctioned by the authorities is equivalent to the
present area, then the Purchaser/s will have the right to construct and own the
same area as owned by him/her/them prior to the date of destruction. However
if the area sanctioned is less, the Purchaser/s will have the right to construct
and own only proportionate area. If the sanctioned area is more, the
additional area shall accrue to the benefit of the Vendors and Builder, subject
they proportionately bearing the cost of the construction.

14.3) Whenever the constructions are so put up after destruction, the
foundation for such construction shall be of such and should be able to
withstand a minimum of Basement, Ground and the number of Floors that
existed prior to its destruction or demolition and for such foundation
the respective owners should bear the cost in proportion to the areas in
their occupation and accordingly the Purchaser/s shall bear the cost in
the ratio of ownership.

14.4) In the event of any disputes relating to the proposed construction of
the buildings in Schedule `A' Property and/or the respective floors, the same
shall be settled through arbitration amongst all the disputed parties and the
decision in such arbitration shall be final and binding on all the parties.

1 comments
Add a comment
H
H
HH blr
, IN
Aug 17, 2012 12:21 pm EDT

all the owners at Watermark should file a note of objection for this particular clause via regd ad letter and thereafter if builder does not remove this clause, then file a case against builder AFTER the handover and registration, to get this particular clause removed, and courts or CCI may likely remove this particular clause... simply because if the buildings were to get destroyed after its life say beyound 70years, how can builder and landowners come and claim ownership of extra FAR /FSI of such surplus area sanctioned due to new law then prevailing after long time in future...
this is highly unfair clause and ought to be objected by all owners who have booked flat at Watermark