This is a complaint made by one Abinath Ram @ Avinath Ram, son of late Manochit Ram @ Manchit Ram of West Chowbaga, P.S.- Tiljala now P.S. –Anandapur, Kolkata-105 against Anil Roy, son of late Bimal Roy, 61, VIP Nagar, P.S.- Anandapur, Kolkata-100, Dist.- 24-Parganas (South) praying for direction upon the OP to execute registration of deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant by putting him in khas possession and deliver in vacant possession.
Facts in brief are that Complainant entered into an agreement with OP on 3.3.2105 for purchasing a flat measuring about 850 sq.ft. including super built area 20% plus stair case on the front side of 2nd floor on the land located in the Purba Jadavpur P.S. OP is M/S C.R. Construction, represented by Anil Roy. OP as per development agreement with the owner proposed to sale a flat on a total consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- and the Complainant agreed to purchase that flat. OP agreed to handover possession within twelve months. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in pursuance of the agreement. The terms of the agreement were that proprietor of M/s C.R. Construction will handover the flat within twelve months from the date of execution of the agreement. The value and consideration of the flat will be fixed as per measurement. In view of this Complainant on 30.5.2016 issued a letter to the OP through Ld. Advocate for asking him to handover the possession and execute the registration deed, but, of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.
On the basis of above facts, notices were issued. But, OP did not appear and so the case is heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint.
Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Complainant has prayed for registration of the deed in his favour of a flat of which consideration was Rs.17,00,000/-. Complainant submitted that he paid Rs.7,00,000/- to the OP M/s C.R. Construction.
On perusal of the agreement for sale, it appears that it was prepared on a paper of Rs.10/- Non Judicial Stamp and the agreement took place between M/s C.R. Construction represented by Anil Roy. There is no stamp of C.R. Construction on any page of this agreement. This is very much surprising. One signature appears which can be read in different ways. It may be Asit Rit, Arit Roy and likewise. So, this does not make it clear that the person who signed for the agreement for sale is Anil Roy of C. R. Construction. Though on the last page there is mention that on 3.3.2015 the person signing received Rs.5,00,000/- and again on the overleaf of the first page Rs.2,00,000/- is mentioned and the person has signed. But, stamp of C. R. Construction does not appear on any page. This belies the claim of the Complainant that he entered into the agreement with one Anil Roy of M/s C. R. Construction and represented by Anil Roy and the Complainant. Since Complainant has not made prayer for refund of the amount, we are of the view that in absence of that we cannot suo motto allow the Complainant by ordering to refund the money received by the OP.
In the circumstances, there is no other alternative but to dismiss the complaint.
Hence,
ordered
CC/323/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.
