1.      Sri Raju Majumder,  

s/o. late Makhanlal Majumder,  residing at 59/3, Nil Ratan Mukherjee Road, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah.

2.      Smt. Banital Majumdar,

w/o Sri Raju Majumder,

residing at 59/3, Nil Ratan Mukherjee Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah.---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      M/s. B.R. Construction,

a proprietorship firm having its

registered office at 2/2, Baishnab Para 1^st Bye Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, represented by its proprietor Sri Amitava Roy, son of late Ranjit Kumar Roy, residing at 2/2, Baishnab Para 1^st Bye Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah.

2.       Sri Debasish Pal,

residing at 59/3, Nil Ratan Mukherjee Road,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah.

3.      Sri Jayanta Pal,

s/o. late Jitendranath Pal,

residing at 59/3, Nil Ratan Mukherjee Road,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

4.      Smt. Subhra Chatterjee,

w/o. Sri Sujay Chatterjee,

residing at 15/5/5, Olabibitala 1^st Bye Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah.

5.      Sri Jiban Pal,

s/o. late Jitendranath Pal,

residing at 59/3, Nil Ratan Mukherjee Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah.

6.      Smt. Krishna Pal,

w/o. Satiprasad Pal,

residing at 23/1, Bhuban Mohini Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainants have  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute the sale deed with respect to the ‘B’ schedule flat and to pay damages of Rs. 25,000/- together with litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of repeated requests did not comply with the terms of the agreement to execute and register the same.

2.                  The o.p. no. 4 in her  written version contended interalia that she is ignorant if

Rs. 2 lacs was paid as earnest money ; that the complainants never demanded to this O.P. with respect to the flat; that the mother of O.P. nos. 2 to 6, Asha Rani Pal  since deceased was the owner of the property;  that Asha Rani Pal executed general power of attorney in favour of O.P. no. 1; that this O.P. has no knowledge about the terms of the agreement between Asha  Rani Pal and O.P. no. 1.   

3.                  The O.P. no. 6 in her written version contended interalia that the claim of the

complainants is baseless; that this O.P. no. 6 being married daughter of Asha Rani Pal has undivided 1/5^th share in the entire property. So the complaint should be dismissed.

4.                  The O.P. no. 5 in his written version contended interalia that the possession

was delivered to the complainants; that Asha Rani Pal since deceased was the owner of the property ; That this O.P. has no intention to refuse the execution and registration of the deed of sale in respect to ‘B’  schedule property.

5.                  The O.P. no. 1 in his written version completely denied the material allegations

made in the complaint and contended interalia that the deed could not be executed as the legal heirs of Asha Rani Pal since deceased did not execute further power of attorney in his favour.

6.                  The O.P. nos. 2, 3 though entered appearance prayed for time for filing written

version but ultimately they did not file any written version. So the matter was heard ex parte against them.

7.                  Upon pleadings of  parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

8.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. The deed of agreement

dated 19-12-2007 unerringly reflects that the agreement was executed between the O.P. no. 1 and the complainants. It was executed on 22-08-2008. The total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid on different dates which is established from the money receipts.

Admittedly the complainants are in possession of the ‘B’ schedule flat but the deed of conveyance was not executed in favour of the complainants for the internal dispute between the O.Ps. After going through the enclosures and hearing the arguments of the parties we are of the view that the  O.Ps. cannot escape  the rigours of  law as the complainants are already in possession of the flat in terms of the agreement after paying  the entire consideration money.  Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. 

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 59 of 2013 ( HDF 59  of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. nos. 1,4,5 & 6 and ex parte against the O.P. nos. 2 & 3 with costs.

      The O.P. no. 1 be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the ‘B’ schedule property in favour of the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order. The rest of the O.Ps. shall be confirming party at the time execution and registration of the deed.   

      The O.P. no. 1 be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment.         

      The o.p. no. 1 do further pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainants as litigation costs.

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.