DATE OF FILING : 19-09-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 04-11-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 08-08-2014.
Chinta Haran Jana,
son of late Dhirendra Nath Jana
of 4/3, Pitambar Roy Lane, P.S. Malipanchghora,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711106. ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Asit Baran Chandra,
son of late Jaladhar Chandra
of 155/2, Sri Ram Dhang Road, P.S. Malipanchghora,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711106.
2. Birendra Kumar Gupta,
son of late Munna Lal Gupta
of 27/1, Rose Mary Lane, P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711106.
3. Shamim Ahmed,
son of Samsul Huda
of 3, Alam Mistry Lane, P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711106.
4. M/S. Divyaa Construction,
having office at 48, Saila Kumar Mukherjee Road,
P.S. Golabari, District – Howrah,
PIN 7111 06.-------------------------------------------------------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 complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register the deed of conveyance relating to the complaint schedule shop room and to pay compensation of 2 lakhs together with litigation costs of Rs. 50,000/- as the o.ps. refused to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant as per agreement dated 23-02-2012.
2. The o.p. 1 in his written version contended interalia that the agreement dated 23-
02-2012 is a product of threat ; that the o.p. no. 1 was forced to sign on the said agreement which is not enforceable in law; that the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 have no power to register any deed in favour of the complainant; that the relation between the parties are constrained for several litigations. So the complaint should be dismissed.
3. The rest of the o.ps. though received the notice did not enter appearance nor did file any written version.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. To a specific question during
argument ld. lawyer for the o.p. no. 1 replied that no suit has been filed for revocation of the deed of agreement dated 23-02-2012. If he was forced to record his signature in the deed of agreement, he ought to have filed FIR and a suit for revocation of the same. In view of the complacency on the part of the o.p. no. 1, we are of the view that the o.p. no. 1 recorded his signature in the deed of agreement on full consent.
6. Admittedly the complainant is in possession of the suit shop room. It is well
settled principle of law that a possession cannot be said to be valid unless the deed of conveyance is executed. The o.p. no. 1 received the consideration money in full and as such he has no way escape from the rigours of the law. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 328 of 2013 ( HDF 328 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest as against the o.p. no. 1 with costs and ex parte as against the rest but without costs.
The O.P. no. 1 be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the suit shop room within 30 days from the date of this order
No order as to compensation as prayed for vide Para 9 (d) (e) (f).
The o.p.no. 1 do pay a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
The complainant is 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.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
