Commissioner V/S Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/1643

Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Jain

18 Oct 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/1643

Moolendra Kumar Gandhi,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Commissioner						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 26.07.2008 18th OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1643/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Sri. Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, S/o. Late Sri. Mulchand Gandhi, Aged about 53 years, 2. Sri. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, S/o. Late Sri. Mulchand Gandhi, Aged about 48 years, 3. Smt. Urmila Kumari Gandhi, W/o. Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, Aged about 51 years, 4. Smt. Baby Kumari Gandhi, W/o. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, Aged about 46 years, All are residing at C/o. Micro Strips, Avalahalli, Timber Yard Layout, Mysore Road, Bangalore 560 026. Advocate (Paras Jain) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, Hudson Circle, Corporation Building, Bangalore City. 2. Sri. M. Babu, The Revenue Officer, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, Begur Road, Bommanahalli, Bangalore City. 3. V. Yeshwanth, The Additional Commissioner (Bangalore South) Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, II Floor, 9th Main, 9th Cross, II Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011. 4. Sri. I. J. Sudhakar, Assistant Law Officer, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, Hudson Circle, Corporation Building, Bangalore City. Advocate (M.G. Vishwanath) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to transfer the khatha in their name with respect to schedule property and pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainants are the absolute owner of the schedule property having purchased the same from the owner Smt. Narayanamma under two sale deeds dated 13.05.1986 for a valid consideration. Thereafter complainants approached the OP to change the khatha with respect to the said property, but all their efforts went in vain. In the meantime their Vendor Smt. Narayanamma filed suit in O.S. No. 986/1987 seeking relief of declaration and injunction. Complainants have also filed counter suit for possession and mense profit at O.S. Nos. 9077 & 9078 of 1996 before the City Civil Court. All the 3 suits came to be disposed of by common judgement on 21.12.2006, wherein the suit of Smt. Narayanamma was dismissed and complainants suits were decreed. Thereafter again complainants approached the OP to change the khatha in their favour. OP did not heed to their request. Complainants have also filed a Writ Petition No. 19025/92 before the Honble High Court of Karnataka seeking for issuance of a direction to OP to change the khatha. With all that to defeat the legal rights of the complainant their Vendor Smt. Narayanamma and her son Sri. Ram Chandra Reddy executed many more title deeds and then with ulterior motive sold the said schedule property to 8 other persons. Though the matter has reached the finality in the Civil Court, OP failed to discharge its obligation as contemplated under sec-114 of KMC Act of 1976. Thus complainants for no fault of theirs, were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants to OP, went in vain. Complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainants in toto. According to OP the purchasers of the schedule property namely Mr. Govind Dhanji Patel and others filed an application for change of khatha with respect to the disputed schedule property, OP obliged to do so. Presently the khatha stands in the name of the said 6 purchasers. The Vendor of the complainant being aggrieved by the judgement and decree preferred an RFA before the Honble High Court of Karnataka at RFA No. 662/2007 and obtained an order of status-quo. Even the complainants have also filed the RFA No. 663/2007 and a stay order is granted on 07.06.2007. Because of the said legal proceedings and the stay orders granted by the Honble High Court of Karnataka OP is unable to act upon the request made by the complainants. Once when the said Civil Suits are decided finally in favour of the either of the litigating parties OP will oblige to change the khatha in favour of the person who gets the decree and establishes the title. The other allegations of the complainants are baseless. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainants filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OPs have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the Vendor of the complainants Smt. Narayanamma was the owner of the disputed schedule property and they purchased the same under two sale deeds dated 13.05.1986. After the purchase of the said property it appears complainants have moved OP to change the khatha in their name by bifurcating the property on the basis of the sale deed. In the meantime as admitted by the complainants themselves their Vendor Smt. Narayanamma filed a comprehensive suit seeking relief of declaration to declare the said sale deeds as null and void and also for injunction at O.S. No. 986/2007. It is also not at dispute that these complainants filed their suits at O.S. Nos. 9077 & 9078 in the year 1996 that is nearly after lapse of 10 years seeking relief for possession and mense profits. 7. What made the complainants to wait for more than 10 years to institute their suit seeking a relief of possession and mense profit is not known. Of course all the 3 suits came to be disposed of by common order dated 21.12.2006. The fact that Smt. Narayanamma executed the GPA in favour of her son Sri. Ram Chandra Reddy is also not at dispute. Sri. Ram Chandra Reddy and others filed objections to the change of khatha. It is also not at dispute that during the pendency of the said dispute on hand the Vendor of the complainant sold the disputed schedule property to 8 other persons, those names are mentioned in para.5 of the complaint. On the basis of the said sale deed and as there was no objection from the Vendor of the property OP has changed the khatha in favour of the said purchasers and as on today khatha stands in the name of the said so called subsequent purchasers. 8. The Vendor of the complainants being aggrieved by the judgement and decree referred to above preferred an RFA before the Honble High Court of Karnataka at RFA No. 662/2007 and obtained an order of status-quo on 03.04.2007. The complainants have also filed an RFA 663/2007 and a stay order is granted on 07.06.2007. The copies of the said orders are produced. Now the grievance of the complainants is that though the matter has reached the finality OP failed to change the khatha in their name. Having considered the above said facts and circumstances and the documents produced the matter is still pending for adjudication before the Honble High Court of Karnataka. The vendor of the complainants have filed a comprehensive suit seeking for relief of declaration to declare the said sale deeds as null and void. 9. This Forum cannot decide a question of title. The litigating parties have already approached the competent Civil Court of Law. Considering the complex question of law, it entailed it would require volumeness evidence for its disposal which is not possible for this Forum to go into all these aspects in its summary jurisdiction. No such prejudice will be caused to the complainants as they have knocked the doors of court of equity to redress their grievance. Once if they succeed in their attempt naturally OP is bound to change the khatha in their favour. As the RFA referred to above are pending for consideration before the Honble High Court of Karnataka, it appears OP hands are tied to act upon under section 114 of KMC Act. Because of the legal hurdles and proceedings OP is unable to consider the request of the complainants. In our view they will not amount to deficiency in service. 10. In view of the elaborate discussions made by us in the above said paras, we are of the opinion that the complainants have failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As already observed by us, complainants have to redress their grievance before the competent Civil Court, if so advised and if succeed they can readily approach OP to act upon the said judgement and decree. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainants now they cannot seek the same kind of relief from this Consumer Forum dealing with a summary proceedings. With these observations we find the complaint is devoid of merits. Hence the complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 26.07.2008 18th OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1643/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Sri. Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, S/o. Late Sri. Mulchand Gandhi, Aged about 53 years, 2. Sri. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, S/o. Late Sri. Mulchand Gandhi, Aged about 48 years, 3. Smt. Urmila Kumari Gandhi, W/o. Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, Aged about 51 years, 4. Smt. Baby Kumari Gandhi, W/o. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, Aged about 46 years, All are residing at C/o. Micro Strips, Avalahalli, Timber Yard Layout, Mysore Road, Bangalore 560 026. Advocate (Paras Jain) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, Hudson Circle, Corporation Building, Bangalore City. 2. Sri. M. Babu, The Revenue Officer, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, Begur Road, Bommanahalli, Bangalore City. 3. V. Yeshwanth, The Additional Commissioner (Bangalore South) Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, II Floor, 9th Main, 9th Cross, II Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011. 4. Sri. I. J. Sudhakar, Assistant Law Officer, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, Hudson Circle, Corporation Building, Bangalore City. Advocate (M.G. Vishwanath) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to transfer the khatha in their name with respect to schedule property and pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainants are the absolute owner of the schedule property having purchased the same from the owner Smt. Narayanamma under two sale deeds dated 13.05.1986 for a valid consideration. Thereafter complainants approached the OP to change the khatha with respect to the said property, but all their efforts went in vain. In the meantime their Vendor Smt. Narayanamma filed suit in O.S. No. 986/1987 seeking relief of declaration and injunction. Complainants have also filed counter suit for possession and mense profit at O.S. Nos. 9077 & 9078 of 1996 before the City Civil Court. All the 3 suits came to be disposed of by common judgement on 21.12.2006, wherein the suit of Smt. Narayanamma was dismissed and complainants suits were decreed. Thereafter again complainants approached the OP to change the khatha in their favour. OP did not heed to their request. Complainants have also filed a Writ Petition No. 19025/92 before the Honble High Court of Karnataka seeking for issuance of a direction to OP to change the khatha. With all that to defeat the legal rights of the complainant their Vendor Smt. Narayanamma and her son Sri. Ram Chandra Reddy executed many more title deeds and then with ulterior motive sold the said schedule property to 8 other persons. Though the matter has reached the finality in the Civil Court, OP failed to discharge its obligation as contemplated under sec-114 of KMC Act of 1976. Thus complainants for no fault of theirs, were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants to OP, went in vain. Complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainants in toto. According to OP the purchasers of the schedule property namely Mr. Govind Dhanji Patel and others filed an application for change of khatha with respect to the disputed schedule property, OP obliged to do so. Presently the khatha stands in the name of the said 6 purchasers. The Vendor of the complainant being aggrieved by the judgement and decree preferred an RFA before the Honble High Court of Karnataka at RFA No. 662/2007 and obtained an order of status-quo. Even the complainants have also filed the RFA No. 663/2007 and a stay order is granted on 07.06.2007. Because of the said legal proceedings and the stay orders granted by the Honble High Court of Karnataka OP is unable to act upon the request made by the complainants. Once when the said Civil Suits are decided finally in favour of the either of the litigating parties OP will oblige to change the khatha in favour of the person who gets the decree and establishes the title. The other allegations of the complainants are baseless. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainants filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OPs have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the Vendor of the complainants Smt. Narayanamma was the owner of the disputed schedule property and they purchased the same under two sale deeds dated 13.05.1986. After the purchase of the said property it appears complainants have moved OP to change the khatha in their name by bifurcating the property on the basis of the sale deed. In the meantime as admitted by the complainants themselves their Vendor Smt. Narayanamma filed a comprehensive suit seeking relief of declaration to declare the said sale deeds as null and void and also for injunction at O.S. No. 986/2007. It is also not at dispute that these complainants filed their suits at O.S. Nos. 9077 & 9078 in the year 1996 that is nearly after lapse of 10 years seeking relief for possession and mense profits. 7. What made the complainants to wait for more than 10 years to institute their suit seeking a relief of possession and mense profit is not known. Of course all the 3 suits came to be disposed of by common order dated 21.12.2006. The fact that Smt. Narayanamma executed the GPA in favour of her son Sri. Ram Chandra Reddy is also not at dispute. Sri. Ram Chandra Reddy and others filed objections to the change of khatha. It is also not at dispute that during the pendency of the said dispute on hand the Vendor of the complainant sold the disputed schedule property to 8 other persons, those names are mentioned in para.5 of the complaint. On the basis of the said sale deed and as there was no objection from the Vendor of the property OP has changed the khatha in favour of the said purchasers and as on today khatha stands in the name of the said so called subsequent purchasers. 8. The Vendor of the complainants being aggrieved by the judgement and decree referred to above preferred an RFA before the Honble High Court of Karnataka at RFA No. 662/2007 and obtained an order of status-quo on 03.04.2007. The complainants have also filed an RFA 663/2007 and a stay order is granted on 07.06.2007. The copies of the said orders are produced. Now the grievance of the complainants is that though the matter has reached the finality OP failed to change the khatha in their name. Having considered the above said facts and circumstances and the documents produced the matter is still pending for adjudication before the Honble High Court of Karnataka. The vendor of the complainants have filed a comprehensive suit seeking for relief of declaration to declare the said sale deeds as null and void. 9. This Forum cannot decide a question of title. The litigating parties have already approached the competent Civil Court of Law. Considering the complex question of law, it entailed it would require volumeness evidence for its disposal which is not possible for this Forum to go into all these aspects in its summary jurisdiction. No such prejudice will be caused to the complainants as they have knocked the doors of court of equity to redress their grievance. Once if they succeed in their attempt naturally OP is bound to change the khatha in their favour. As the RFA referred to above are pending for consideration before the Honble High Court of Karnataka, it appears OP hands are tied to act upon under section 114 of KMC Act. Because of the legal hurdles and proceedings OP is unable to consider the request of the complainants. In our view they will not amount to deficiency in service. 10. In view of the elaborate discussions made by us in the above said paras, we are of the opinion that the complainants have failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As already observed by us, complainants have to redress their grievance before the competent Civil Court, if so advised and if succeed they can readily approach OP to act upon the said judgement and decree. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainants now they cannot seek the same kind of relief from this Consumer Forum dealing with a summary proceedings. With these observations we find the complaint is devoid of merits. Hence the complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.